Editor's note:Welcome
to the eighteenth issue of Climate-L News, compiled by
Richard
Sherman. If
you should come across a news article or have a submission for the next
issue, please send it directly to
Richard.
CLIMATE-L News is an exclusive publication of
IISD
for the
CLIMATE-Llist and should not be reposted or republished to other
lists/websites without the permission of IISD (you can write
Kimo for permission.) If you have been
forwarded this issue and would like to subscribe to CLIMATE-L, please visit
<http://iisd.ca/scripts/lyris.pl?join=climate-l>.

Funding for the production
of CLIMATE-L (part of the IISD Reporting Services annual program) has been
provided by the US Department of State Bureau of Oceans and International
Environmental and Scientific Affairs, The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, the Government of Canada (through CIDA, DFAIT and Environment
Canada), the Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests and Landscape (SAEFL),
the United Kingdom (through the Department for International Development -
DFID and Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs - DEFRA), the
European Commission (DG-ENV), the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and
the Government of Germany (through the German Federal Ministry of
Environment - BMU, and the German Federal Ministry of Development
Cooperation - BMZ). General Support for the Bulletin during 2003 is provided
by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the Government of
Australia, the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
of Sweden, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade of New Zealand, the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway, Swan International, the Japanese
Ministry of Environment (through the Institute for Global Environmental
Strategies - IGES), the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry
(through the Global Industrial and Social Progress Research Institute -
GISPRI), and the Ministry for Environment of Iceland. If you like CLIMATE-L
News, please thank them for their support.

Tehran, Oct 29 - A
two-day workshop aimed at addressing the challenges and opportunities of the
Kyoto protocol and potential implications of climate change for Iran
concluded in Tehran on Sunday, said a press release issued here on Tuesday
by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Tehran office. It added
that the workshop supported by UNDP and jointly organized by the Department
of Environment (DOE) and Iran's Fuel Conservation Organization (IFCO)
affiliated to the Ministry of Oil brought in almost 200 officials and energy
and environment experts from the UN Department of Economic and Social
Affairs (UNDESA).

"The workshop has offered an excellent opportunity to address the link
between Iran's domestic programs and international efforts to achieve
sustainable development through the Kyoto protocol and its market-based
approach, the clean development mechanism," said senior energy expert Roger
Raufer from New York-based UNDESA. "Iran and other OPEC members have not
ratified the Kyoto protocol primarily because of concerns about its adverse
effects on crude oil exports."But the protocol also has market-oriented
provisions such as the clean development mechanism which would encourage
international investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy within
developing countries," it added.

According to the report, the event was designed to update participants'
knowledge and understanding of the Kyoto protocol, which is intended to
mitigate the impact of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions
from cars, power plants, refineries and other sources. The report said that
the protocol has so far been ratified by 119 states around the world. The
workshop also highlighted the distinct role of Iran in the multilateral
negotiations and scientific analysis related to climate change. "FICO and
the DOE in cooperation with UNDP and UNDESA are also analyzing the costs and
benefits of Iran's potential ratification of the protocol from a sustainable
development perspective." "It is expected that the findings and outcomes of
the project will provide important inputs for Iranian policy-makers as they
consider the ratification of the Kyoto protocol," concluded the report.

STOCKHOLM,
Oct 24 (Reuters) - Sweden called on supporters of the Kyoto protocol on
curbing global warming on Friday to join forces to persuade Russia to
endorse the pact that will collapse without Moscow's support. "We believe
we are in a critical stage that requires a renewed offensive from the EU
side," Environment Minister Lena Sommestad told a news conference ahead of a
European Union environment ministers' meeting in Luxembourg next week. "We
need to sit together with other countries that have ratified the Kyoto
agreement, like Canada, Norway, Japan, and discuss what we can do to get the
Russians to ratify. It is important is to have other players as well,"
Sommestad said.

Last month,
Russian President Vladimir Putin backed away from Moscow's previous pledges
to ratify the 1997 pact soon, saying he needed more time to decide. He
wondered aloud if Russia's farms might even benefit from a warmer world.
The protocol will collapse without Russia because it needs countries
accounting for 55 percent of developed nations' emissions of gases like
carbon dioxide from car exhausts and factories to sign up. Kyoto has so far
reached 44 percent. Russia accounts for 17 percent and is vital for Kyoto
because the world's biggest polluter, the United States, pulled out its 36
percent in 2001.

"We are
disappointed with Russia," Sommerstad said. "If Russia does not ratify, we
have to find other forms of cooperation. Those countries that have ratified
the agreement should have a discussion in the coming years about how we can
go ahead."

Britain
today joined forces with France and Germany to issue a challenge to the US
and Russia over global warming. Environment ministers of the EU’s “big
three” nations – including the UK’s Margaret Beckett – issued a joint
declaration stating that climate change was a “real problem” which had been
convincingly shown to result from human activities and urging other nations
to back the Kyoto Protocol. They painted a nightmare picture of increasingly
frequent droughts and floods if urgent action was not taken to reduce
emissions of greenhouse gases.

Mrs Beckett
and her French and German counterparts Roselyne Bachelot-Narquin and Jurgen
Trittin made a direct call to Russia to ratify the protocol, to allow it to be implemented worldwide.
Although they did not name the US in
the statement, it was effectively a challenge to President George Bush, who
has said he will not ratify Kyoto because he does not believe there is
conclusive proof that use of fossil fuel is to blame for a global increase
in extreme weather. An Environment Department source said the ministers were
agreed “the American position that there is any doubt that human activity
has contributed significantly to climate change is not credible”.

Some 118
countries – including the UK – and the EU have ratified the protocol, which was adopted by the
United Nations in 1997. For it to be implemented, it must be ratified by
countries responsible for 55% of the 1990 global output of carbon dioxide –
a threshold which can be reached only if either Russia or the US sign up. Today’s statement
was agreed when the ministers met in London for the launch of a renewable
energy and energy efficiency partnership. It came after a summer of
virtually unprecedented heatwaves across Europe, which caused widespread
crop failures and tens of thousands of deaths.

The
ministers said: “Climate change is a real problem. Over the last few years,
we have begun to experience more extreme climatic phenomena. “This summer,
parts of Europe faced an exceptional heat wave and drought that caused
deaths and illness among older age groups, heat stress to livestock, forest
fires and damage to crops. “The scientific community has gathered convincing
evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities. “Extreme events, such as heat waves or
heavy precipitation, will be more frequent, more intense. What we
experienced this summer is effectively an illustration of what we are likely
to see more frequently in the not too distant future. “The international
community needs to act with determination to deal with this problem.” Kyoto
was the only existing international framework for tackling the challenge of
climate change, the ministers said. “There is no credible alternative to it
on the table,” they said. “We call upon Russia to ratify the Kyoto
Protocol.”

Sources
close to the ministers said they had directed their appeal to Moscow, rather
than Washington, because Russia has not yet said it will not ratify Kyoto
and is seen as more likely to move.

The UK
should develop stronger scientific links with the Russians as pressure grows
for action on climate change, a leading scientist and Labour peer said
today. Lord Hunt of Chesterton, chairman of the Advisory Committee on the
Protection of the Sea, made his plea at a Westminster news conference to
launch a project aimed at cleaning up pollution hot spots in the Arctic.
Lord Hunt said it was his view that “more should be done” to forge contact
with the Russians in this area. But he believed the problem was a question
of attitude towards climate change among the Russian scientific community.

Russia is
being urged to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, brokered by Deputy Prime Minister
John Prescott in 1997, which for the first time commits countries to legally
binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions, the chief cause of climate
change. But its chances of success in slowing down the process is limited
without Russian backing. The crucial role of the Arctic in global weather
patterns is now under scrutiny along with the problem of industrial
pollution in the region. Lord Hunt said: “We had a very interesting
discussion when we were preparing this programme, with the Russian Academy
of Sciences. “The conversation that we had was quite similar to ones I have
had with geologists in the United States or even geologists in France.
“There is a geological view of climate change, which is that we are going to
be having another Ice Age soon and what are we worrying about? “It’s a
question of timescales and this historical view of climate is a very
dominant view in Russian academic circles. “This isn’t political, it’s a
Russian academic view.

“They have
been less persuaded by the big climate change predictions which have
actually dominated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “So there
is an academic element and it’s not cynical. It’s genuinely a scientific
view. “Our view is that we should be engaged, we should talk to them and
make sure there is a clear monitoring of the permafrost and these
processes.” Lord Hunt added that he has asked the Government questions in
the House of Lords on the need to have good scientific links between the UK
and Russia because they “are very weak”. “The amount of scientific exchange
is minuscule. We want them (the Russians) to join the Kyoto Protocol and, if
I may say so personally, more should be done,” said Lord Hunt.

Klaus
Toepfer, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme,
told the news conference that Russian President Vladimir Putin “is well
aware of that activity (melting permafrost) and we are all underlining again
that, with regard to climate change, there are no winners, there are only
losers.”

Russia,
which holds the key to implementation of the Kyoto Protocol, is waffling on
ratification, dimming chances of the treaty to combat global warming coming
into effect this autumn as expected. The 1997 treaty on greenhouse gas
emissions reduction will take effect only when the total carbon dioxide
emissions from ratifying countries that exceed 55 percent of all emissions
of all industrialized nations. The United States is not part of the pact,
but the CO2 emissions from the nations that have already endorsed it,
including Japan, have reached 44 percent of the target. Russia's
ratification would put the Kyoto Protocol into effect.

As it
became clear during the World Climate Change Conference last month in
Moscow, however, Russia is stalling. President Vladimir Putin said he will
make the final decision after considering Russia's national interests and
studying the related issues. Moscow should put aside its concern about
short-term benefits and ratify the agreement soon. Russia is only wavering
because the pact is not likely to generate as much money from emissions
credits as initially expected. Russia has a generous surplus of unused
emissions credits as a result of economic stagnation. It originally planned
to sell the credits at a hefty profit to countries that are already above
quota.

When
Washington backed out of the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, the market's biggest
potential buyer of emissions quota credits was out of play, which will keep
prices of the credits down. That has aroused opposition to early
ratification within the Russian government, even though proponents note
doing so would help encourage foreign investment in energy-efficient Russian
industries. Russia's biggest export sector, the oil industry, worries that
the Kyoto Protocol would curb oil consumption, thereby depressing oil
prices. Some Russians are also betting that a delay in their country's
ratification could help lift the prices of emissions permits. Others
advocate using Moscow's pivotal position on adoption of the Kyoto Protocol
as a bargaining chip in negotiations for its admission to the World Trade
Organization.

The lower
house of Russia's parliament is to have an election in December, followed by
a presidential election in March. The political circumstances are believed
to have led Putin to decide to put off the politically sensitive Kyoto
Protocol decision. But time is running short, with the approach of the 2008
deadline for achieving the accord's emissions goals. Further delays by
Russia will leave other countries little time to take the steps necessary to
curb their own greenhouse gas emissions. We are alarmed to note there is
growing support, especially within the United States, for the view that the
Kyoto Protocol doesn't work and should be superseded by a new framework. In
Japan, too, there is skepticism, especially among business leaders, who see
the emissions targets as too restricting. But it would be unfair for Japan
to complain now about its commitments. When the United States opted out of
the Kyoto Protocol treaty two years ago, it would have become a lost cause
without Japan's endorsement. Tokyo used its position to horse-trade with
other countries and succeeded in obtaining more ``offsets'' it can claim
through the effect of forests that absorb and limit CO2. Japan's
emission-reduction target has been reduced sharply because of that.

Now, Japan
needs to work with European nations to persuade Russia to quickly ratify the
pact, while encouraging ways to curb greenhouse gas emissions at home to be
sure to achieve its target. If leading countries pursue emissions
reductions, Russia will eventually realize it gains nothing by
procrastination.

The
international effort to help our embattled planet requires quick action on
the framework to curb global warming, thus putting pressure on the United
States, a major source of CO2 emissions, to return to the Kyoto Protocol.

BANGKOK —
After weeks of hinting that his country might not agree to the terms of the
Kyoto accord, Russian President Vladimir Putin told Prime Minister Jean
Chretien in a one-on-one meeting Monday that he does plan to ratify the
global treaty for climate change. "He (Putin) said to me that he intended to
implement Kyoto,'' Chretien told Canadian
journalists gathered here at the Asia-Pacific summit. "He has some
negotiation going on at this time on some elements of it. But it is the
intention of his government to implement Kyoto,'' Chretien said.

A senior
Canadian official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, later confirmed that
Chretien meant to say Putin pledged to "ratify'' the accord. "I don't think
he suggested it would happen within weeks or months but he didn't say it was
a matter of years either,'' the official said, adding that "Russia is
indispensable'' to the future of the pact. Putin reportedly expressed
concern that he first must get the decision through the Duma, Russia's lower
house of parliament. He also said meeting greenhouse gas targets is a
daunting challenge for countries poorer than Canada. Significantly more
money would be needed to transform Soviet-era industries so that they would
conform to the requirements of the treaty, Putin said.

Earlier
this month, Russia appeared to be backing away from the international treaty
on greenhouse gases. Such a move would have been a considerable blow to the
deal. Putin's economic adviser stirred up a gathering of global climate
experts in Moscow three weeks ago by questioning the value of Kyoto and
saying the pact to curb greenhouse-gas emissions appeared too costly and
inefficient. Putin further disappointed the pact's European and UN backers
by adding his cabinet had not yet decided on ratification.

The Kyoto
Protocol calls for countries to reduce their level of greenhouse-gas
emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. If a country exceeds the emissions level,
it could be forced to cut back industrial production.

To come
into force, the 1997 protocol must be ratified by no fewer than 55
countries, accounting for at least 55 per cent of global emissions in 1990.
Since the United States rejected the treaty, the minimum can be reached only
with Russia's ratification.

Environment
Minister David Anderson has said that Canada, which has already ratified the
pact, will implement the protocol even if Russia backs out and leaves it
with no real force. Russia's emissions have fallen by 32 per cent since
1990, largely due to the post-Soviet industrial meltdown, but the levels
have started to rise again amid an economic revival. Carbon dioxide is the
most common greenhouse gas.

Proponents
of the protocol say any failure to quickly put it into force would trigger a
dangerous, steep rise in greenhouse gas concentrations that would be far
more difficult to control in the future. They also pointed at economic
benefits Russia could reap from the agreement by attracting vital foreign
investment in its energy sector.

OSLO,
Norway — The head of the U.N. climate panel called on Moscow Thursday not to veto the Kyoto
Protocol, saying it was wrong to assume global warming could help Russia and
warning it would suffer politically if it killed the pact. "I don't think a
negative decision on Kyoto would be in Russia's interest overall," said
Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.

President
Vladimir Putin backed away last month from Russian promises to ratify soon
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol limiting emissions of greenhouse gases, saying he
was undecided about its benefits. He joked that rising temperatures might
save Russians money on fur coats. "Simplistic assumptions that climate
change would help Russian agriculture and make that extremely cold country
warmer are scientifically erroneous," Pachauri said. "The impacts of climate
change on Russia could be quite complex."

Some
Russian scientists reckon a warmer climate might aid farming by extending
growing areas northwards, but others say rainfall might decrease in vital
southern crop-growing regions and that the country could suffer more
droughts and floods. The Kyoto Protocol — which aims to limit emissions of
greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide from cars and factories that are blamed
for rising temperatures — will collapse without Russian support. The United
States pulled out in 2001. Pachauri called on Russia to join 119 other
nations that have ratified Kyoto as a first step to reining in climate
change, ranging from rising sea levels to more powerful storms. And he said
a "Yes" could help Moscow regain political influence it lost with the
collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

"Russia is
a large country with a rich history and has ambitions to emerge once again
as a global power," he said. "It cannot, therefore, gain in standing
politically if it does not join hands with other countries in doing what is
required to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases." Kyoto, a tiny first
step toward reining in climate change, will only enter into force if nations
accounting for 55 percent of the developed world's emissions sign up. So
far, ratification has reached 44 percent. Russia has a 17 percent stake and
the United States 36 percent. President Bush pulled out, arguing that Kyoto
was too costly and wrongly excluded developing nations. Under Kyoto, overall
carbon dioxide emissions have to be cut to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by
2008-12. Russia might be able to sell spare quotas because the collapse of
smokestack Soviet industries has sharply cut its emissions.

Pachauri
said Russia would have "enormous opportunities for energy-efficiency
improvements, which could earn large sums of money through joint
implementation projects and emissions trading for a long time to come."
Monday, a Russian presidential administration source said that Russia's
indecision was because of serious worries about Kyoto and was not
brinkmanship to win more cash after the U.S. pullout undermined demand for
Russia's excess quotas. Pachauri said that a Russian decision on Kyoto might
now have to wait until after parliamentary elections in December.

NEW YORK,
Oct. 15 (UPI) -- A new scientific study suggests a global treaty focusing on
intercontinental air pollution could be more effective than the
controversial Kyoto Protocol. Researchers say by cooperating to reduce
pollutants such as ozone and aerosols, countries could address their own
regional health concerns, keep their downwind neighbors happy and reduce the
threat of global warming in the process.

The report
appears in the current edition of Environmental Science & Technology, a
peer-reviewed journal of the American Chemical Society, the world's largest
scientific society. The Kyoto Protocol, drafted in 1997, was designed to
provide binding commitments for reducing national emissions of greenhouse
gases, especially carbon dioxide. But some nations, such as the United
States and China, have been reluctant to fully adopt the standards because
of their potential economic burden. Now researchers from Columbia, Harvard
and Princeton universities acknowledge the need to regulate carbon dioxide emissions,
but they suggest an international treaty dealing with air pollutants could
be a better first step, uniting the interests of all countries involved.

Not only a
feasibility study but also ample scientific proofs of global warming of the
climate are required for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, a spokesman for
the Kremlin administration said on Tuesday. There is no single opinion in
world science on the human factor in the global warming of the climate, he
said. It has also been proved that increasing emissions of carbon dioxide,
or the hothouse gases, are the reason for the climatic changes. "These
issues are no joke or formality. Answers to such questions are very
important for Russia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol," the Kremlin
spokesman said.

Such
questions and the possible costs to be incurred by the Russian economy in
case of ratification are not accidental. They were discussed way back at the
2001 meeting of the G8 leaders. This is why the Russian president has
proposed to climatology specialists worldwide to gather in Moscow for the
World Conference on Climate Change. "Putin invited them in the hope that
international experts can provide an answer to these questions. So far, no
answers have been received," said the source. "The Russian government is
studying the Kyoto Protocol and possible effects of its ratification. A
decision will be taken after the study is over," emphasized the Kremlin
spokesman.

Cape Town:
South Africa needs to make important policy decisions to lessen the
economic, social and environmental impacts of climate change in this
country. Bob Scholes of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research,
who delivered the keynote address at the SA Global Change Symposium in Cape
Town yesterday, said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
which is made up of thousands of scientists, had established that the
world's climate was changing because of human activity.

"We're now
committed to global climate change and the effects will continue for
millennia. What the debate is centred on now is the extent of climate
change. It could be three times or 10 times as much as we've already seen,"
Scholes said. "At a global level, mitigating measures are being taken very
seriously. South Africa needs to be looking at mitigating measures, too. We
have some of the top climate change scientists, but their work is not being
translated into policy. Climate change issues are not high on the national
agenda."

Scholes,
who is on the IPCC, said that the average global temperature had increased
by 0.6C in the last 150 years. In the next century, he said, the minimum
amount the Earth's temperature was likely to increase by was 1.8C and the
maximum 5.6C. "That's this century. If it rises to 3C by the end of this
century, then it will go to 6C by the end of the next century," Scholes
said. The sea level, he said, would rise by 0.5m in the next 50 years. The
polar ice-caps and the oceans had an enormous ability to absorb energy,
which meant that the world's climate would carry on changing long after
human activities had ceased to cause climatic change.

Scholes
said that the vulnerability of regions to climatic change varied enormously.
Those countries best able to cope with the effects were the wealthy nations,
which had money and technology to help withstand some of the impacts. Africa
was one region, he said, that would be hard hit. "The developing world could
be powerful in the international negotiations because of their numbers, but
they lack strong leadership. The rest of Africa is looking to South Africa for leadership, but
so far it hasn't come. "In the next five years South Africa is going to have
to make some decisions to mitigate against climate change, for example in
agricultural adaptation and in managing water resources," he said.

South
Africa would also need to make decisions about where their electricity would
come from. "That decision has implications for the next 50 years," Scholes
warned. "Do we stay with coal, and, if so, do we invest in clean coal? "How
do we mix gas into that? Do we take renewables seriously? "These decisions
have huge consequences for climate and for national competitiveness," he
said.

NEW YORK -
New evidence of a rise in Arctic temperatures may be a further warning sign
of global warming, according to a NASA study to be published next month. The
study — which used satellite images taken from space — found that most of
the Arctic warmed significantly over the last 10 years, rising 1.08 degrees
per decade. The biggest temperature increases occurred in North America,
with an increase of 1.9 degrees in 10 years. "The warming rate is quiet high
compared to what we observed previously," Dr. Josefino C. Comiso, the
study's author, told APTN. Comiso, the senior research scientist at NASA's
Goddard Space Flight Center, said the study looked at surface temperatures
taken from satellites between 1981 to 2001.

Last year,
another NASA study found that sea ice in the Arctic was declining at a rate
of 9 percent per decade. That study also found that in 2002, summer sea ice
hit record low levels. Scientists fear that these trends are a result of
greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere. According to NASA's new study, the
rate of warming in the Arctic over the last 20 years is eight times the rate
of warming over the last 100 years. The new study also found that
temperature trend varied by region and season. While warming was prevalent
over most of the Arctic, some areas, such as Greenland, appear to cool.
However, warming trends may still affect ocean processes, said Michael
Steele, senior oceanographer at the University of Washington. Water absorbs the sun's energy rather than reflecting it into the
atmosphere the way ice does. As the oceans warm and ice thins, more solar
energy is absorbed by the water, creating further melting, said Steele.

This
changes the temperature of ocean layers and marine habitats, he said. The
new Arctic warming study, to appear in the November issue of the American
Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate, was conducted to record Arctic
changes and develop a better understanding of climate worldwide. The surface
temperature records were obtained through thermal infrared data from
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites.

A summit of
the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) opens in Kampala
today where the seven-member countries are expected to discuss various
matters of a bilateral nature. Chief Justice Benjamin Odoki inspects a guard
of honour mounted by men and women of the Uganda Police Force at the opening
of the law year in 2002. Corruption is dealt with firmly in the Judiciary
The hope is that the delegates will find the time to include the issue of
our changing weather on the agenda. The Meteorological Department has
predicted that as a result of global warming, temperatures will continue to
rise for the foreseeable future.

Global
warming is an urgent matter that threatens to dramatically alter weather
patterns, and in so doing has the potential to turn the world economy upside
down. This year alone in Uganda we have had the most erratic seasons with
the rain falling when it should not and the temperatures getting intolerably
hotter.

These
changes have been blamed on the emission of gases that have depleted the
Ozone layer, the earth's only defence against direct attack from the sun's
rays. These gases are emitted from factories, vehicles and even fridges. In
a word, uncontrolled pollution of our air is to blame. Unfortunately, rich
countries like America have refused to respect the articles of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, that was comprehensively
captured in the Kyoto Protocol, whose goal was to commit nations to
controlling their pollution. But we in the East African region can still do
something in our own small way.

IGAD can,
for instance, agree to maintain certain minimum levels of pollution to be
enforced by the individual member countries.

As climate
expert Mr Stephen Magezi said, poor countries like Uganda will be worst hit
by the climate change because our economies are already too small to
mitigate the impact of global warming.

If IGAD's
members come together and agree on the said minimum standards there is an
outside chance that we will contribute to world efforts to do something
about this threat. The little resources we have must not be adversely
expended on paying for the consequences of global warming, especially in as
far as our agricultural production, the mainstay of the country, is
concerned.

An expert
on climate change, Dr. Ulric Trotz warned that Caribbean nations needed to
implement two important measures to protect themselves from global warming:
adaptation to the problem, and innovation.

Dr. Trotz
explained that the Caribbean collectively contributes much less than one per cent of the greenhouse
gases in the world. He pointed out however, that the developed nations
create 75 per cent of worldwide greenhouse gases, and they remain unwilling
to fully commit themselves to correcting the problem, and were not living up
to their moral responsibility to solve it. Trotz, who has a PhD in Organic
Chemistry, and was recently inducted as an Honorary Distinguished Fellow of
UWI, said major polluters like the United States of America (USA) and
Russia, have declined to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. This treaty strives
to reduce concentration of greenhouse gases to 5.2 per cent of 1990 levels.

Speaking at
the University of the West Indies (UWI), School of Continuing Studies,
lunchtime lecture series, Trotz suggested that Caribbean nations should implement sound policies at home. “We have to look at
ourselves as developing nations and to dig deep, and to basically realise
that a lot of this we will have to implement on our own. We have to find
innovative ways to approach, we can’t depend on handouts from the North for
ever.” Several serious effects are expected from changes in the global
climate. These include sea level rise and coastal flooding, as well as salt
water seeping into ground wells, changes in weather patterns, an increase in
the frequency and severity of thunderstorms, rises in cases of malaria, and
reef destruction. “The prediction for the Caribbean is that you’re going to get wetter dry seasons and drier rainy
seasons.”

However,
overall there is going to be less rainfall. Dr. Trotz hinted that a higher
incidence of drought would be something that countries like Antigua and Barbados would have to be
very worried about, since most of the water is from ground water. Trotz said
that experts predicted a rise in the sea level by eleven, to 77 cm by the
year 2100. And that there are predictions that temperatures will rise
between 1.4° to 5.8° C by the year 2100.

He
recommended several ways for the region to adapt to the challenges caused by
global warming. These included conservation, a move to renewable energy,
setting buildings further away from high water marks (setback), updating
building codes, and protecting reefs, mangroves, and beaches. Trotz also
insisted that the region needed to use its collective bargaining power. He
said the Caribbean “needs to continue vigorous negotiations at the
international fora to get the implementation, full implementation of ... the
Kyoto protocol.” He called for the industrialised countries to adopt a
lifestyle change, in order to reduce their contribution to global warming.
He also said that they should provide the technology that the Caribbean
needed to adapt to the coming changes because the industrialised states were
mostly responsible for the gradual heating that the world had been
experiencing since 1860. “We at the global level will like to see a greater
commitment by the industrialised countries to provide resources to our
countries for adaptation.”

Finally
Trotz said that the region was recently preparing for a Barbados Plus Ten
conference to be held in Mauritius, as a follow up to the 1994 Small Island
Developing States on sustainable development. He said that “precious little”
has been done to implement the Barbados Programme of Action (BPOA) which
came out of the Barbados Conference.

HOMER,
ALASKA, Oct. 7 (CSM) -– Overlooking the snowcapped mountains and tidewater
glaciers around Kachemak Bay, this hamlet of fishermen, artists, and
tourists seems the picture of Alaskan charm. But beneath the scene of plenty
is a landscape parched. Three hot summers have dried local wells and forced
the native village of Nanwalek to shuttle in bottled water and ration it. Swaths of spruce forest
around Homer and the Kenai Peninsula
are brown because of an unprecedented beetle infestation, linked to the
warming climate. And snow levels have diminished steadily since 1938.

While much
of the world knows global warming as a phrase, Alaska's warming climate is
far more palpable. Summers here, as elsewhere, have been warmer and longer;
winters are more temperate, with average temperatures climbing eight degrees
Fahrenheit in three decades. Alaskans have mowed their lawns in November,
golfed in February, and basked in record in record temperatures all summer.
"The most positive comments come from the more longtime Alaskans. They say,
'Heck, we've been through lots of tough winters. We deserve an easy one,'"
says Jackie Purcell, meteorologist and weather anchor for Anchorage TV
station KTUU.

Computer
simulations of climate change have long suggested global warming's effects
would be most pronounced at the poles. Researchers have tried to gauge the
impact of the climate system's natural variations, and see if they can
account for change over the last few decades. However, most of the warming
in Alaska is not due to these natural variations, says Michael Wallace, an
atmospheric scientist at the University of Washington. Environmental changes in Alaska
"suggest that global warming is playing a role."

The world
should take note, adds Gunter Weller, executive director of the University
of Alaska's Center for Global
Change and Arctic System Research: "We are the canary in the mine shaft."
Indeed, melting Alaskan glaciers are shedding twice as much ice as in
previous decades. And the Arctic ice pack has thinned by 40 percent since
the 1960s. "There's no greater threat to Alaska's ecosystem and indigenous
cultures than global warming. Period," says Deborah Williams, executive
director of the Alaska Conservation Foundation.

Global
warming is believed to be the result of rising amounts of carbon dioxide and
other "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere. These trap the earth's radiant
heat, creating a greenhouse effect. The effects are more dramatic here
because of the temperature-sensitive overlay of permafrost and glaciers.
Thawing permafrost plagues highway crews and operators of the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline, which depends on supports to avoid sinking into the tundra. The
oil industry has lost half its exploration season to the warmth, which keeps
the tundra soft--and unable to support heavy vehicles or drilling
equipment--for longer stretches of time. Large sections of northern forests
are collapsing into swamps of melting permafrost; sections of shoreline on
the Arctic Coast have thawed, making them vulnerable to storms; and the
Arctic's largest ice shelf, solid for 3,000 years, broke up last month due
to warmer temperatures - though scientists were hesitant to blame global
warming specifically. "It's more than just mechanical erosion. It's melting
of the soil. You can get big collapses of beach bluffs," says Craig George,
a biologist with the North Slope Borough.

In rural
villages, too, thawing permafrost wreaks havoc: Two Inupiat Eskimo villages
on the northwestern coastline, Shishmaref and Kivalina, have lost so much
ground they're in danger of washing into the sea. The villages are planning
to relocate, at a cost of hundreds of millions. Animals, meanwhile, are
dealing with the retreating ice pack. With less time to escape from land in
the spring, they sometimes wind up stranded on the outskirts of towns like
Barrow. Polar bears have grown thinner in recent years, and some have to be
killed as more migrate south. And the warming may have dire consequences for
salmon in the Yukon River, the major food and income source for indigenous people along the
2,300-mile waterway.

Rivers have
heated five degrees in 20 years, making mid-summer temperatures nearly
lethal for salmon, says Richard Kocan of the University of Washington's School of Aquatic and Fisheries Science. With warmth comes increased infection by a
parasite that seems to wipe out their reproductive abilities. And because
the taste and texture of the meat has changed, fishermen harvest 150 salmon
to get 100 usable fish, straining runs, Dr. Kocan says: "They don't feel
right. They don't taste right. You can't sell them." The economic toll
alone, say some, should focus attention on Alaska. Disruptions to oil and fishing
industries would damage the nation's economy, Dr. Weller points out, and the
cost of rebuilding roads, airports and entire towns is staggering. Still, he
says, "It hasn't been enough to convince the political system that something
has to be done."

The state
has launched a study to reevaluate regulations on tundra travel, which oil
companies claim are too strict. And Gov. Frank Murkowski (R) is pushing for
a permanent gravel highway on the western North Slope to take the place of
the temporary ice roads that the oil industry has touted as environmentally
friendly. "You and I know that ice roads work, but it seems like winters are
coming later and breaking earlier," the governor told a pro-development
group earlier this year. But a North Slope road is little consolation for regular motorists, who may soon face new
woes: frequent floods on major highways over the next 10 to 15 years as
newly thawed soil clogs bridges and culverts, scientists say. The problem is
most pronounced in the interior, where highways run through discontinuous
permafrost and along shrinking glaciers.

State
officials have warned that warmer winters will increase freeze-thaw cycles
for mountain snowpack. That means Alaskans should expect more frequent
avalanches, like the deadly snow slide that rumbled into a neighborhood in
the Prince William Sound town of Cordova in 2000. For native people--17
percent of Alaskans--who depend on berries and wild foods, global warming is
a particular threat. The natural world "is our classroom," says Sterling
Gologergen, an environmental specialist with the Nome-based Norton Sound
Health Corp. But in her region of Alaska, traditional whaling
schedules have been disrupted by an earlier bowhead migration. Walrus
hunters must travel farther, at greater risk, to find animals at the ice
edge. Beavers, previously unknown in the region, are showing up in local
streams, and their dams could interfere with water quality and fish runs.
Drastic changes in vegetation mean her mother in Savoonga, on the Bering Sea
island of Gambell, must walk farther to find the plants she gathers in
summer. The result could be a shift in diet--and intangible losses. "I have
a grandson and he's 4," says Ms. Gologergen. "What if I don't get to show or
do things I did with my kids?"

WASHINGTON,
Oct. 28 — Motivated by environmental and economic concerns, states have
become the driving force in efforts to combat global warming even as
mandatory programs on the federal level have largely stalled. At least half
of the states are addressing global warming, whether through legislation,
lawsuits against the Bush administration or programs initiated by governors.
In the last three years, state legislatures have passed at least 29 bills,
usually with bipartisan support. The most contentious is California's 2002
law to set strict limits for new cars on emissions of carbon dioxide, the
gas that scientists say has the greatest role in global warming. While few
of the state laws will have as much impact as California's, they are not
merely symbolic. In addition to caps on emissions of gases like carbon
dioxide that can cause the atmosphere to heat up like a greenhouse, they
include registries to track such emissions, efforts to diversify fuel
sources and the use of crops to capture carbon dioxide by taking it out of
the atmosphere and into the ground.

Aside from
their practical effects, supporters say, these efforts will put pressure on
Congress and the administration to enact federal legislation, if only to
bring order to a patchwork of state laws. States are moving ahead in large
part to fill the vacuum that has been left by the federal government, said
David Danner, the energy adviser for Gov. Gary Locke of Washington. "We hope
to see the problem addressed at the federal level," Mr. Danner said, "but
we're not waiting around." There are some initiatives in Congress, but for
the moment even their backers acknowledge that they are doomed, given strong
opposition from industry, the Bush administration — which favors voluntary
controls — and most Congressional Republicans.

This week,
the Senate is scheduled to vote on a proposal to create a national
regulatory structure for carbon dioxide. This would be the first vote for
either house on a measure to restrict the gas. The proposal's primary
sponsors, Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Joseph I.
Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, see it mainly as a way to force senators
to take a position on the issue, given the measure's slim prospects. States
are acting partly because of predictions that global warming could damage
local economies by harming agriculture, eroding shorelines and hurting
tourism. "We're already seeing things which may be linked to global warming
here in the state," Mr. Danner said. "We have low snowpack, increased forest
fire danger."

Environmental groups and officials in state governments say that energy
initiatives are easier to move forward on the local level because they span
constituencies — industrial and service sectors, Democrat and Republican,
urban and rural. While the coal, oil and automobile industries have big
lobbies in Washington, the industry presence is diluted on the state level.
Environmental groups say this was crucial to winning a legislative battle
over automobile emissions in California, where the automobile industry did
not have a long history of large campaign donations and instead had to rely
on a six-month advertising campaign to make its case. Local businesses are
also interested in policy decisions because of concerns about long-term
energy costs, said Christopher James, director of air planning and standards
for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. As a result,
environmental groups are shifting their efforts to focus outside Washington.

Five years
ago the assumption was that the climate treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol
was the only effort in town, said Rhys Roth, the executive director of
Climate Solutions, which works on global warming issues in the Pacific
Northwest states. But since President Bush rejected the Kyoto pact in 2001,
local groups have been emerging on the regional, state and municipal levels.
The Climate Action Network, a worldwide conglomeration of nongovernment
organizations working on global warming, doubled its membership of state and
local groups in the last two years. The burst of activity is not limited to
the states with a traditional environmental bent. At least 15 states,
including Texas and Nevada, are forcing their state electric utilities to
diversify beyond coal and oil to energy sources like wind and solar power.

Even rural
states are linking their agricultural practices to global warming. Nebraska,
Oklahoma and Wyoming have all
passed initiatives in anticipation of future greenhouse-gas emission
trading, hoping they can capitalize on their forests and crops to capture
carbon dioxide during photosynthesis. Cities are also adopting new energy
policies. San Franciscans approved a $100 million bond initiative in 2001 to
pay for solar panels for municipal buildings, including the San Francisco
convention center.

The rising
level of state activity is causing concern among those who oppose carbon
dioxide regulation. "I believe the states are being used to force a federal
mandate," said Sandy Liddy Bourne, who does research on global warming for
the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group contending that carbon
dioxide should not be regulated because it is not a pollutant. "Rarely do
you see so many bills in one subject area introduced across the country."

The council
started tracking state legislation, which they call son-of-Kyoto bills,
weekly after they noticed a significant rise in greenhouse-gas-related
legislation two years ago. This year, the council says, 24 states have
introduced 90 bills that would build frameworks for regulating carbon
dioxide. Sixty-six such bills were introduced in all of 2001 and 2002. Some
of the activity has graduated to a regional level. Last summer, Gov. George
E. Pataki of New York invited 10 Northeastern states to set up a regional
trading network where power plants could buy and sell carbon dioxide credits
in an effort to lower overall emissions. In 2001, six New England states entered into an agreement with Canadian provinces to cap overall
emissions by 2010. Last month,
California, Washington and Oregon announced
that they would start looking at shared strategies to address global
warming.

To be sure,
some states have decided not to embrace policies to combat global warming.
Six — Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, West Virginia and
Wyoming — have explicitly passed laws against any mandatory reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions. "My concern," said Ms. Bourne, "is that members of
industry and environment groups will go to the federal government to say:
`There is a patchwork quilt of greenhouse-gas regulations across the
country. We cannot deal with the 50 monkeys. We must have one 800-pound
gorilla. Please give us a federal mandate.' "Indeed, some environmentalists
say this is precisely their strategy.

States
developed their own air toxics pollution programs in the 1980's, which
resulted in different regulations and standards across the country. Industry
groups, including the American Chemistry Council, eventually lobbied
Congress for federal standards, which were incorporated into the 1990 Clean
Air Act amendments. A number of states are trying to compel the federal
government to move sooner rather than later.

On
Thursday, 12 states, including New York, with its Republican governor, and
three cities sued the Environmental Protection Agency for its recent
decision not to regulate greenhouse-gas pollutants under the Clean Air Act,
a reversal of the agency's previous stance under the Clinton administration. "Global
warming cannot be solely addressed at the state level," said Tom Reilly, the
Massachusetts attorney general. "It's a problem that requires a federal
approach."

MOSCOW
(Reuters) - With solutions costing up to a mind-numbing
$18,000,000,000,000,000, it is among the most expensive questions in history
-- "How do you stop people from causing dangerous global warming?" Eighteen
quadrillion dollars is almost 600 times the 2002 world gross domestic
product, estimated by the World Bank at $32 trillion. If you glued 18
quadrillion dollar bills end to end, they would stretch way past Pluto.
Luckily, most estimates of the costs of curbing global warming by the U.N.'s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) run to just hundreds of
trillions of dollars over 100 years -- a relative pin prick for a growing
world economy.

But the
costs of cleaning up human emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide
produced by factories and cars, and of shifting toward cleaner energies such
as solar or wind power, are starting to give governments nightmares. "The
long-term costs could be enormous," said Andrei Illarionov, an adviser to
Russian President Vladimir Putin who has backed away from previous promises
to quickly ratify the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol on curbing global warming.

Kyoto, a
tiny first step toward reining in human emissions of non-toxic carbon
dioxide from fossil fuels blamed for blanketing the planet and driving up
temperatures, will collapse without Russia's approval. The United States
pulled out in 2001. "Maybe the money would be better spent on promoting
economic growth, on ending poverty or on helping developing nations," he
told a climate conference in Moscow this month, pointing to the highest IPCC
estimate of almost $18 quadrillion by 2100.

BUSH
SAYS KYOTO COSTS TOO MUCH

Beyond
Kyoto, which runs to 2012, climate experts say quadrillions of dollars in
the 21st century may hang on interpretations of the word "dangerous." At
root is the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, ratified by
the United States, which aims for "stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
(human) interference with the climate system." A heat wave in Europe this
year killed about 15,000 people in France. About 1,300 died in a heat wave
in India. There were 562 tornadoes in the United States in May, more than
any month on record. Was any of that caused by humans and "dangerous?"

If so,
humanity would have to start slashing the use of the fossil fuels, a
backbone of the world economy from coal-fired power plants and steel mills
to trucks and cars. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri said the meaning of
"dangerous" was largely a value judgment and up to governments to define.
But he also told Reuters: "Scientifically, one can ask...whether the extent
of sea level rise which has taken place, the damage to coral reefs, changes
in precipitation levels and impacts on water availability in different parts
of the world are not enough reasons for decision makers to decide what is
dangerous?"

The IPCC,
representing a consensus among scientists, said in 2001 there was "new and
stronger evidence" that people were behind global warming. Skeptics say
shifts in solar radiation, for instance, might explain rising temperatures.
President Bush argues that Kyoto is too expensive and unfairly excludes
developing countries. Another 119 countries have ratified the treaty and
fear that inaction could bring even more catastrophic costs. Rising sea
levels could inundate some Pacific islands and ports around the world while
a warmer climate may cause deserts, flooding, storms and drive many species
to extinction.

"We're on
the way toward causing dangerous climate change," said Steven Guilbeault of
the environmental group Greenpeace. "We should act now before it's too
late." The IPCC says all but one scenario for climate costs -- the $18
quadrillion tag -- would cut world GDP by 1 percent or less by 2050. "It has
negligible impacts on the projected economic growth," the IPCC said in a
report this month.

Even the
strictest constraints would brake GDP by only 4.5 percent in 2050.
Quadrillions of dollars apparently evaporate because they start in 1990
dollars and get eroded by inflation. And the scenarios do not gauge
benefits of averted climate change -- like the possibility of not having to
build Dutch-style dykes -- nor examine short-cut solutions such as sucking
carbon dioxide out of the air and burying it. Even if fully implemented,
Kyoto would be of little help. It would cut global temperatures by only 0.15
degrees Celsius (0.3 degrees Fahrenheit) by limiting emissions of gases like
carbon dioxide -- a fraction of a forecast of a global temperature rise of
1.4-5.8 Celsius by 2100.

There is a
good test of senatorial courage coming this week. For the first time,
senators will be asked whether they are prepared to do something serious
about global warming. The question comes in the form of a bill by John
McCain and Joseph Lieberman that would impose mandatory caps on industrial
emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases thought to be heavily
responsible for warming the earth's atmosphere. The bill is a long shot. But
it will provide the first true test of the sincerity of senators who say
they care about the problem and have faulted President Bush for not doing
enough.

More
broadly, it will also tell us whether the politics of global warming are
finally beginning to catch up to the science of global warming. The science
seems clear enough, and surveys suggest that the public and many local
politicians are worried. But Washington hangs back, fearful of asking the
country to make the investments in cleaner fuels, cars and power plants
needed to start bringing emissions down.

This fear
has been engendered in part by Mr. Bush, who remains stubbornly positioned
at the rear of a parade he ought to be leading. Warning of job losses, he
has opposed not only the 1997 Kyoto Protocol but even the mildest variations
on that agreement. Instead, he offers research into technological fixes
(fine, as far as they go) as well as a voluntary program that will allow
industrial emissions to grow as long as they increase more slowly than the
economy itself, which of course misses the point. The carbon in the
atmosphere, already dangerously high, is likely to stay there for a long
time. Thus the name of the game is to stabilize and reduce emissions, not
merely to slow their growth.

Senators
McCain and Lieberman have it right. Their plan would require energy,
transportation and manufacturing companies to cut their emissions to 2000
levels by 2010. That isn't asking a lot. According to two reputable studies,
the cost would be less than $20 per family per year, and there would be no
negative impact on employment. Indeed, the investments in new technologies
necessary to achieve the reductions, as well as the money saved on gasoline
from more efficient cars, could actually boost the economy.

The bill
also offers a range of clever economic incentives — chiefly a market-based
system of emissions trading, patterned after the highly successful acid rain
program in the 1990 Clean Air Act — to help industries keep the costs of
compliance low. Three hours of debate will be allowed for the
McCain-Lieberman forces, three for the opposition. The point will
undoubtedly be made that America is under no obligation to act as long as
developing countries like China increase their emissions. The truth is just the reverse: One cannot
expect developing nations to do anything until the United States, the biggest polluter, takes
the lead. McCain-Lieberman is a splendid chance to do so.

WASHINGTON
(Reuters) - Twelve U.S. states and the District of Columbia sued the Bush
administration on Monday to block Clean Air Act changes for coal-fired
utility companies that the states say will weaken air pollution standards
and harm public health. The Environmental Protection Agency on Monday
implemented rules to allow U.S. coal-fired utility companies and oil
refiners to significantly expand aging facilities without installing
pollution-reduction equipment. Emissions from coal-fired plants can
aggravate asthma, chronic bronchitis and pneumonia. The 12-state coalition
called the changes in the EPA's rules a major rollback of the Clean Air Act.

The
lawsuit, filed in the federal appeals court in Washington, asserted that only
Congress can make such major changes in air pollution policy. EPA officials
contend the new rules will not increase power plant emissions. Northeast
states are particularly concerned about emissions because prevailing winds
push pollutants from huge Midwest-area power plants into their region. Last
week, a separate group of states sued the administration to force it to
regulate greenhouse gas emissions of carbon dioxide. "We should not be
relaxing emission control standards when air pollution continues to cause
such devastating health and environmental problems," New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer said in a statement.

Other
states in the lawsuit are: Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. "No
litigation from the Northeast attorneys generals can produce anything but
confusion," utility lobbying group Electric Reliability Coordinating Council
said in a statement. Separately, the U.S. Senate is expected to vote on
Thursday on a measure proposed by Connecticut Democratic Sen. Joseph
Lieberman and Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain that would cap carbon
dioxide emissions for the first time. Global warming is thought to be caused
by the atmospheric build up of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The burning
of fossil fuels in cars and power plants is a major source of carbon dioxide
emissions. The White House has sought voluntary cutbacks in emissions,
arguing mandatory reductions could hurt the U.S. economy.

The 37th
Tokyo Motor Show, which opened to the public Saturday, revealed that
automakers' enthusiasm toward environmental protection measures still varies
widely among companies and countries. Cars powered by fuel cells were on
show at Makuhari Messe convention center in Chiba. The technology is
expected to form the clean energy system of the 21st century. Among the
fuel-cell vehicles, Toyota Corp.'s prototype with a thin, plate-shaped power
generator installed beneath the seats employs high-tech features, including
its control by electric signals. Fuel-cell cars first started attracting
attention at motor shows in 1997, when the U.N. climate change conference in
Kyoto adopted the Kyoto Protocol.

But the
models displayed by Japanese and other makers at the time had huge power
generators that occupied the entire rear seat of a passenger car with the
capacity to accommodate five people. The fuel-cell cars displayed at this
year's Tokyo Motor Show not only were more roomy inside, but also
demonstrated advanced technological development, such as innovative driving
systems. Honda Motor Co., for example, has developed a technology that
allows the engines of fuel-cell cars to be started at as low as minus 20 C.
The technology was made to overcome the problem of water discharged from
fuel cells freezing in cold weather. "The problem was not noticed in
laboratory tests, but surfaced during driving tests. We managed to overcome
the problem with the new technology," a Honda official said.

The
official predicted that the automaker "can shift to mass production once
infrastructure for the fuel (such as facilities to provide hydrogen) is
ready." However, the eco-technologies of the automakers differed widely,
with the main gap in fuel-cell cars in terms of driving distance after one
recharge of fuel, which ranged from 150 kilometers to 400 kilometers. Also,
many carmakers from Western Europe and some Japanese makers did not indicate
the fuel efficiency of models that already are on the market at the motor
show.

Fuel
efficiency symbolizes the environmental protection efforts of automakers, as
evidenced by the preferential tax treatment in Japan for cars with high fuel
efficiency. As a result, the varying degrees of fuel efficiency in the cars
on display revealed differences in each maker's stance toward the issue. The
important point though is that differences in environmental policy cannot be
downplayed as being simply due to disparities in terms of the makers'
traditions or characteristics. This is because the number of cars is
continuing to increase across the world, especially in Asia--a factor that
may worsen environmental problems in the region, such as global warming and
air pollution. In this connection, the government proposed at a transport
ministers meeting in January last year to develop an international standard
of environmentally friendly cars. The meeting was attended by ministers from
20 Western and Asian countries.

At a
separate international conference in January this year, participants
reaffirmed the importance of setting a uniform goal to develop
environmentally friendly cars.

Details of
the goal will be discussed by the United Nations' World Forum for
Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Japanese, U.S. and European automakers
also held a conference in Paris last autumn to discuss how to unify car
regulations, which currently differ widely among countries. At the second
meeting of the conference held at Makuhari Messe on Wednesday, the carmakers
agreed to accelerate the move. But there are still many disparities
concerning the recognition of eco-friendly cars from country to country. For
example, while Japan is toughening regulations on diesel-powered vehicles to
prevent air pollution, European countries place high priority on the use of
such cars for their high fuel efficiency and low energy consumption, which
are expected to help them address the issue of global warning. Currently,
Japan is the leader in the development of eco-friendly cars as seen in the
launch of fuel-cell cars by Japanese makers late last year. In this
respect, it is important for Japan to take the lead concerning the
development of an international standard. Japanese automakers also are
expected to make further efforts in this field.

In the
international debate over how to deal with global warming, the United States
and China occupy center stage. The United States has long been the dominant
producer of carbon dioxide emissions and the other heat-trapping greenhouse
gases associated with rising temperatures. China still lags far behind in
total emissions, but its vast population and rapid rate of economic growth
put it high on experts' lists of future sources of the warming gases. India
is not too far behind. China is rapidly increasing its consumption of coal
and oil to fuel an ever more electrified and mobile society. India is
experiencing a similar energy surge for similar reasons, and like China, it
hopes rapid growth will help to reduce widespread poverty.

But if the
United States, China and India are critical to meeting the threat of
greenhouse gases, the question is: who goes first? The emissions
restrictions called for in the pending climate treaty known as the Kyoto
Protocol apply only to industrialized countries that ratify it. There are
provisions that could allow a rich country to gain credits for investing in
emissions-reducing projects in poorer ones, but the rules remain mired in
disputes over how to measure gains and what kinds of projects should
qualify. In the meantime, President Bush has rejected the Kyoto pact,
objecting that it is costly and ignores China, India and other big
developing nations.

Nonetheless, many global warming experts say that history and logic require
the United States to take the lead. In almost all international
environmental agreements in recent decades, the so-called developing world
has essentially been allowed to sit out the first round or two. Whether the
goal has been curbing global warming, restoring the ozone layer or phasing
out toxic organic chemicals, there has long been a broad consensus that the
first steps should be taken by the industrial powers. The 1992 climate
treaty, which underpins the pending Kyoto Protocol, explicitly speaks of
"differentiated responsibilities" for advanced and advancing nations. After
all, the logic goes, rich countries achieved their prosperity in part
because they were unhampered by restrictions on the use of natural
resources.

Still, the
Bush administration remains opposed to any emissions restrictions, though it
has been sending mixed signals of late. Last November, for example, during
international treaty talks in India on the climate change issue, Paula J.
Dobriansky, the under secretary of state for global affairs, said, "We do
not see targets and timetables as realistic for developing countries." But
critics of Mr. Bush say that is not a sign of progress. "Their messages at
home and abroad are both calculated to discourage action," said Elliot
Diringer, the director of international strategies for the PewCenter on Global Climate Change,
a private group advocating emissions cuts. "At home you say Kyoto is unfair
because it doesn't include developing countries and in negotiations you say
it's unfair to ask developing countries to take targets," he said. "The
message is inconsistent but the strategy is consistent — for more delay."

OTTAWA—Striking findings are emerging from research at the world's largest
open-air climate-change experiment that will prove troubling to Canada's
policy-makers and challenging for scientists. The results strongly suggest
that Canada's forests won't be able to soak up anywhere near as much excess
carbon dioxide as the federal Kyoto action plan assumes. Because higher
carbon dioxide levels make plants grow faster, Ottawa was counting on our
forests to soften the impact of greenhouse warming by taking in more carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it for decades in the soil as
organic matter and other forms of carbon.

By 2008,
roughly one-sixth of Canada's Kyoto target reduction in carbon
dioxide emissions annually is supposed to come from these forest and
farmland "sinks." Federal officials have never made public the detailed
studies to support that estimate. Now, research warns that the projected
carbon storage by our forests could be cut in half because of interference
from ground-level ozone, a leaf-scorching gas that also comes from burning
fossil fuels. And the forests could become a net source of carbon dioxide
years sooner than projected. "Any benefit you get from high carbon dioxide
is largely wiped out by ozone," David Layzell told MPs and policy advisers
at a briefing about the carbon cycle here this week.

Layzell, a
Queen's University biology professor, was commenting on a study by U.S.
researchers published last week in the British science journal Nature, the
latest in a series of striking findings from a unique forest laboratory
located in northern Wisconsin. The 10-year, $18 million experiment, begun in
1998, involves exposing forest stands to controlled levels of carbon dioxide
and ozone, the main constituent of urban smog. The chief species studied,
the poplar, is the most widespread tree in Canada, covering an estimated 16
million hectares of forest. But poplars growing in the carbon dioxide levels
forecast for mid-century in North America falter at soaking up the gas when
also exposed to concentrations of ground-level ozone already common across
southern Ontario and parts of Canada, U.S. researchers found.

Ecologist
Wendy Loya from Michigan Technological University led a team that carried
out a tricky measurement of how much of the carbon actually found its way
into the soil, as humus and other chemicals formed from decaying leaves.
They compared storage in two forest stands — one growing in carbon dioxide
and the other in carbon dioxide plus ozone. Over four growing seasons, the
ozone-affected trees contributed three tonnes per hectare less carbon to the
soil compared with trees receiving only carbon dioxide, an amount Layzell
calls "quite significant." Loya says that ozone scorches tree leaves and
generally reduces the amount of litter dropped to the ground to decay. But
the pollutant may also adversely affect the soil microbes essential to the
decay process. "We're definitely seeing a change in the way that carbon is
being processed through the soil system," she says.

Four
scientists from the federal forestry service are among the 55 researchers
from seven countries working at the open-air forest lab, which costs more
than $1.5 million a year to run and is largely funded by U.S. government
agencies. "This is entirely policy-driven science. We need to understand
what future forests will look like under climate change," says Kevin Percy,
a forest physiologist and Canadian member on the committee that oversees the
experiment. Last year, a team led by Percy reported in Nature that the
ozone-carbon dioxide combination increased damage from the forest tent
caterpillar in the Wisconsin test stands. The caterpillar already defoliates more deciduous forest
than any other insect in North
America.

"Everything
points to insects playing a very important role in determining whether our
forests are going to be carbon sinks or sources in the future," the federal
scientist says.

Sophisticated controls maintain the ozone concentration in the forest
laboratory over the entire growing season at an average of 55 parts per
billion, well below levels routinely recorded for days at a stretch in
Ontario and Quebec forests during smog alerts. Percy's research also found
that the ozone pollution disrupted the normal relationships between insect
predator and prey. Aphids flourished because their natural enemies were
significantly diminished, for reasons still unclear.

"Ozone is
obviously affecting the productivity and chemistry in the tree canopy which
then cascades down into the forest floor and eventually into the soil," he
says. The Wisconsin forest laboratory features a dozen stands of poplar, birch and maple
trees ringed by hollow tubes 12 metres high that pump out the extra carbon
dioxide and ozone from storage tanks. Spaces between the tubes allow natural
air circulation and the movement of birds and insects.

The European Commission
welcomed the vote this week in the European Parliament to approve a Decision
of the Parliament and the Council on monitoring greenhouse gas emissions.
This Decision is important because it implements the EU's commitments under
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which aim to curb global warming by reducing
emissions of gases that contribute to it.

The Decision obliges
Member States to monitor and report emissions of greenhouse gases accurately
and put in place programmes to reduce them. With this, the EU has the
infrastructure necessary to monitor progress, gauge the effectiveness of
measures, and achieve reductions.

"The agreement on this
Decision shows the EU's determination to implement all the provisions of the
Kyoto Protocol and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions", Environment
Commissioner Margot Wallström declared.

"It means that the EU
and its Member States will improve their monitoring of both greenhouse gas
emissions and progress towards their Kyoto targets, which will provide us
with a comprehensive set of data of EU greenhouse gas emissions and of our
climate change policies. It also means that we will comply with our
monitoring and reporting commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. When the EU
ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we knew that solid action had to follow. This
Decision represents such solid action."

The Decision replaces
the existing Council Decision 93/389/EEC on the monitoring of greenhouse gas
emissions in the EU. In particular, it: reflects the wider and more detailed
reporting requirements and guidelines for implementing the Kyoto Protocol,
which were agreed at international conferences on tackling climate change in
2002; provides for more accurate guidelines on emission forecasts, which
will increase their reliability and thereby the ability of the EU and its
Member States to monitor their progress towards their Kyoto commitments;
puts in place Kyoto Protocol infrastructure on issues such as national
systems for monitoring greenhouse gas emissions and registries for recording
transfers of emission rights under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Decision promotes
compliance with the EU's Kyoto targets by requiring Member States on an
annual basis to match their greenhouse gas emissions with emission rights
granted under the Kyoto Protocol. It also provides for a review in 2006 of
the extent to which the EU and its Member States are meeting all their
commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, in the light of which the Commission
may make proposals to ensure these commitments are met.

The Decision also
benefits the public by increasing the quality and transparency of emissions
reporting by the EU and its Member States, which will enable them to judge
better the progress of the EU towards its Kyoto commitments. The European
Commission proposed this Decision in February 2003. The European Parliament
today voted through changes to that proposal on which it had reached
agreement with the Member States and which therefore constitute the final
Decision on this issue. The Environment Council is expected to approve all
of these changes at its next meeting on 27 October. The Decision will enter
into force as soon as it bears the signatures of the Presidents of the
Parliament and Council.

LONDON, Oct
24 (Reuters) - Ten major investment banks sat down to an "environmental"
breakfast with Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair at Downing Street this
week to discuss a new European emissions trading scheme. Senior executives
from Morgan Stanley French bank Societe Generale and Barclays Capital were
among those invited to discuss an emissions trading market for the City of
London, a Downing Street spokeswoman confirmed on Friday. One banker who
attended said Blair wanted to discuss what the City of London could do to
help with the climate change initiative. "There are a lot of emission rights
which could be traded in the future when the new EU directive is put in
place," he said.

Margaret
Beckett, Minister for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, also attended
the breakfast. From 2005 European Union companies in the power, iron, steel
glass, cement, ceramic, pulp and paper industries will have to have
"emission rights" or "carbon permits" to cover their carbon dioxide emission
each year. In Britain this will involve about 2,000 installations.

Under an
emissions trading scheme, companies which cut emissions by more than they
initially pledged, would be able to sell them on as "credits" to firms
unable to meet required reductions. Britain has been running a voluntary
emissions trading scheme since April last year. But from January 1, 2005, a
European emissions trading scheme will come into force for all 15 member
states, plus the 10 accession states.

"This
should be an attractive market for financial institutions to be involved in
and with our experience of the voluntary scheme, London is ideally placed to
be a base," the Downing Street spokeswoman said. The proposed UK scheme
could mirror a similar exchange set up in Chicago. The Chicago Climate
Exchange gives companies credits for cutting carbon dioxide omissions.

(Portland, Ore.)-For the cost of a movie
and popcorn for each student, Lewis & Clark College has become the first
campus in the nation to comply with the greenhouse gas emissions targets
called for in the Kyoto Protocol. The achievement means that the campus has
reduced emissions of the gases that contribute to global warming to 7
percent below what it produced in 1990. The reduction was achieved through
the purchase of carbon dioxide offsets.

Offset
projects reduce greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere and help mitigate
climate change by funding efforts such as reforestation, green building
practices or wind farms. The result is a cost-effective method that enabled
Lewis & Clark College to minimize its net carbon impact. Students at the
private liberal arts college spearheaded the effort. The cost to achieve
compliance is estimated at $10 per student.

"Our goal
was to demonstrate that individuals can make a difference in fighting global
warming," said Laura Matson '05, an economics major from St. Louis Park,
Minn. Students raised $16,400 to purchase carbon
offsets through the Climate Trust, a Portland-based nonprofit organization
that promotes climate change solutions by providing greenhouse gas offset
projects and advancing offset policy. "Offsets are an important tool in
reducing our impact on the global climate," said Michael Ashford, deputy
director of the Climate Trust. "Offsets enable more reductions to occur with
already limited resources."

The
College's achievement comes as a Senate vote is expected October 29 on the
McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act. The bill would cap emissions of
the gases that cause global warming, but at a level below the Kyoto Protocol
targets.

Matson,
along with Brian Erickson '06, a biology major from Kirkwood, Mo., and Julian Dautremont-Smith,
from Allentown, Pa., an environmental studies
major who graduated last May, inventoried the amount of campus emissions,
suggested methods of reduction, lobbied for funding to purchase offsets, and
launched an educational campaign to explain the protocol's relevance to the
campus community. Students from the campus group Students Engaged in
Eco-Defense helped organize the campaign.

"This
achievement is the result of students being engaged at a very high level in
environmental policy," said Eban Goodstein, professor of economics at Lewis
& Clark. "The students engaged the science, economics and politics of global
warming. Kyoto Protocol compliance through offset purchases appears to be
quite affordable. The example of Lewis & Clark College indicates that
colleges and universities are the perfect laboratory in which to examine the
larger implications of emissions reduction efforts."

The college
will receive a certificate honoring the protocol compliance effort in
November from College Climate Response, an organization of faculty members
from across the country who are engaged in analyzing greenhouse gas
inventories. The campus plans to mark receipt of the certificate with a
lecture about global warming issues.

The Climate
Trust is a nonprofit organization formed in 1997 in response to landmark
Oregon legislation requiring new power plants to counter their global
warming impact. This innovative legislation allows power plant developers to
meet this carbon dioxide emission standard by making a payment to the
Climate Trust. These funds and the funds provided by participants in the
Greenhouse Gas Partnership Program are used to stimulate projects that
avoid, displace or sequester CO2 emissions. These projects are called
offsets because they offset the production of CO2 and other greenhouse
gases.

OTTAWA (CP)
— A group representing some of the country's biggest industries has agreed
with the federal government on principles of an emissions-trading system to
help Canada meet its commitments under the Kyoto protocol. The purpose of
the system is to reduce the cost to business of meeting the
emissions-cutting targets of the climate-change protocol, officials told a
briefing today. The system would allow heavy emitters of greenhouse gases to
meet Kyoto targets by reducing their own emissions or by buying emissions
permits from other companies — in Canada or abroad — that come in under
their emissions limits. "If we are to achieve our environmental goals, we
must harness the potential of market forces," said Bob Page, chairman of the
International Emissions Trading Association.

The group,
which has an office in Toronto, is dedicated to establishing an
international emissions-trading system. It represents 27 of Canada's biggest
companies in industries such as oil, chemicals, steel and pulp and paper.
Even though the principles are vague, they indicate significant progress in
easing the tension between Ottawa and big business with respect to the Kyoto
treaty. The first principle says the system must "deliver emissions
reductions with environmental integrity, economic efficiency and social
equity." Another calls for a single emissions market in Canada, which seems
to rule out Alberta's proposal to have a market of its own.

A joint
statement calls for Canada to link its emissions trading system with those
of other Kyoto countries, and says the private sector should lead
development of a trading infrastructure. It says the system must include
enough buyers and sellers for adequate liquidity, and should be transparent
while addressing "the normal need for commercial confidentiality." John
Bennett of the Sierra Club criticized the process because it has excluded
grass-roots environmental groups. The most controversial principle seems to
say that Canadian companies would have unlimited access to emissions credits
from other countries. It says: "Canada's climate change plan imposes no
quantitative or qualitative limitation on a company's use of Kyoto units
within the Canadian system."

Bennett
said that contradicts promises from Environment Minister David Anderson that
Canada will achieve most of its emissions reductions through domestic
action. Matthew Bramley of the Pembina Institute suggested that the
statement would allow Canada to rely heavily on so-called hot-air credits
from Russia.

Russia,
which has not yet ratified the protocol, is expected to have a lot of extra
emissions credits caused by the collapse of its economy rather than by any
improvement in industrial processes. These credits are often referred to as
"hot air credits." Officials conceded that the principles are just a first
step toward a functioning system. The government has promised legislation
that would give the system a legal framework and penalize companies that
don't follow the rules.

The
"coalition of the willing" is not only a strategic alliance in which
Australia's main contribution has been to bring a kind of respectability to
the US invasion of Iraq. The Howard Government also joined the Bush
Administration in refusing to sign the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas
emissions. Coal producers are politically powerful in both countries. They
are also desperate. They know that unless there is an imminent scientific
breakthrough akin to a miracle that can reduce carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions into the atmosphere caused by coal-fired electricity generation,
their industry has no long-term future. Australia is linked to the US in the
defence of coal as the main source of electricity generation through a
"climate action partnership" in which research is directed to finding an
economical and safe means of capturing the CO2 emitted from coal-fired power
stations, and then burying the gas underground (geo-sequestration).

To this end
Australian and US officials are focused on the common interest in both
countries in the geological storage, capture and separation of CO2. The Bush
Administration has set up a $US1 billion ($A1.4 billion) program called
Futuregen for industry to design, build and operate a nearly emission-free
coal-fired electricity and hydrogen production plant based on
geo-sequestration. The Howard Government has allocated $112 million for
strategic research into fossil fuel energy, mainly for carbon sequestration
- and for the first time in 30 years, there is no fund for strategic R&D in
renewable energy. The shift in funding away from renewable energy R&D and in
favour of sequestration of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels would be
defensible if there was a general scientific consensus that this was the
best way to spend the energy R&D dollar. But quite the opposite is the case.

In a
discussion paper prepared by the Electricity Restructuring Group from the
University of NSW's School of Electrical Engineering, a
powerful case has been made that there is a strong international scientific
consensus that "approaches combining energy efficiency, distributed
cogeneration, renewable energy and low-emission fossil-fuelled generation
(gas fired) hold the greatest potential for large-scale emission
reductions". The consensus involves the International Panel on Climate
Change, the United Nations Development Program and World Energy Council
Report and the British Department of Trade and Energy white paper of 2003.
The Paris-based International Energy Agency used technical modelling to
produce a scenario that shows "geo-sequestration plays almost no role in
2020 and only a minor role in 2040 - renewables make over twice its
contribution. Other scenario results also suggest a major decline in global
coal-fired electricity whether geo-sequestration is available or not."

Given the
weight of scientific opinion, it seems amazing that the Australian
Government has chosen to make the capture and sequestration of CO2 one of
Australia's national research priorities. In any event, it is an example of
"picking winners" big time - and picking winners is supposed to be
completely contrary to the economic rationalist philosophy that the
Government claims drives its industry development policies.

Driving the
massive government assistance to geo-sequestration is the Government's
part-time Chief Scientist, Dr Robin Batterham (who is also chief
technologist for the mining giant Rio Tinto).

Batterham
as Chief Scientist claimed in a presentation to the state and federal
ministerial council on energy that the cost for "zero emission" coal
technology is around $10 a tonne of CO2 "avoided", compared with alternate
means of avoiding CO2 emissions.

According
to Batterham, the cost estimate came from unpublished data from Roam
Consulting. In response to a written inquiry about the data from Greens
senator Bob Brown, Roam Consulting said "the data does not correlate
directly with the information we provided to our client". The data has
nevertheless been incorporated in the Beyond Kyoto report of the Prime
Minister's Science and Engineering Innovation Council and seems to be the
scientific excuse for the massive redirection of taxpayer funding to
geo-sequestration-related R&D. The University of NSW's Electricity Restructuring
Group commented: "The chosen criteria and methodology in its calculation is
unknown. Nevertheless, it is some four to five times less than other
published estimates (CSIRO, GEODISC, IEA, IPCC and the US Department of
Energy), which all suggest significant abatement costs."

A research
paper prepared in Brown's office and the Electricity Restructuring Group
paper points to the fact that the policy of putting virtually all the
Government's greenhouse abatement eggs in the geosequestration basket is
high risk and probably irresponsible, given the alternatives that are
available and given the weight of scientific opinion. But even more
important is the perception of conflict of interest between Batterham's
simultaneous roles as Government Chief Scientist and Rio Tinto adviser.
Brown (and the public) is entitled to answers to his questions, including
what advice Batterham gave the Government on the Kyoto Protocol, and
Batterham's role in developing research links between Australia and the
United States - especially in supporting Futuregen, because Rio Tinto is
involved in Futuregen through its US subsidiary Kennecott Energy.

NEW DELHI :
The government has launched a 12-month national strategy study on
implementing the clean development mechanism in India . CDM aims at checking
climate change by giving developed country polluters the option to win
credits for reducing pollution by funding clean projects in developing
countries.

Multilaterally, this mechanism can only take off if an
internationally-negotiated protocol for checking climate change comes into
operation. This does not seem likely in the near future. But on Tuesday,
environment minister Baalu launched the study, to be conducted by The Energy
and Resources Institute (TERI) with Swiss consultant INFRAS AG.

It aims at
assessing the opportunities presented by potential international markets and
evaluating processes and methodologies. Expecting this to facilitate the
operationalisation of CDM in India, Baalu said India’s water resources,
ecosystems, agriculture and coasts are vulnerable to climate change and work
is now on to prepare a detailed inventory of greenhouse gases and identify
vulnerability and adaptation concerns. India ’s contribution to the
polluting greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere is low yet, said
Baalu. It has undertaken reforms which contribute to international efforts
at protection.

21 October
– The top United Nations advocate for poor countries has called for the
greatest possible participation in next year's meeting on Small Island
Developing States (SIDS), and has outlined a series of topics for focus.
Anwarul Chowdhury, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Least
Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and SIDS, told the
General Assembly's Economic and Financial Committee that "the widest
possible range of stakeholders, including Member States, multilateral
financial institutions, the private sector, non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), and other civil society organizations should participate" in the
conference to be held next August in Mauritius.

The meeting
is a 10-year review of the implementation of the Barbados Programme of
Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States,
which was signed in 1994.

Mr.
Chowdhury said for Mauritius "we need a focused agenda." He suggested the
delegates identify priorities, to include the vulnerability - economic,
social and environmental - of SIDS, poverty eradication measures, freshwater
issues, climate change, renewable energy, development of marine resources
and sustainable fisheries, HIV/AIDS, and trade. He said global advocacy for
the cause of SIDS and the mobilization and coordination of international
support for realizing the Mauritius outcome was vital in
helping those countries face development challenges in the coming years.

BONN (AFP) - A UN
conference on natural disasters opened with an appeal to richer countries to
help the developing world cope with the impact of floods, drought and
hurricanes. Klaus Toepfer, head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), said
developed nations could recover from natural catastrophes faster thanks to
their strong economies. In developing nations, however, recovery could be
long and tortuous. "Years of progress could be washed away within hours," he
told the conference in the former German capital. Toepfer said statistics
showed that a natural disaster in an industrialised country killed an
average 22 people. In an emerging economy however, the toll rose to 1,052.

Citing one of the main
themes of the conference, he called for far greater cooperation between rich
and poor nations. The gathering of experts and officials is meeting until
Saturday on how to integrate early-warning mechanisms into public policy. In
a welcome speech, German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin said there
were three times as many natural disasters now as in the 1960s causing seven
times as much damage. He claimed there were 755 recorded catastrophes last
year affecting some 10 percent of the world population. Trittin, a member of
Germany's Greens party, blamed global warming as the prime cause and urged
better environmental protection measures and greater use of renewable
energy.

EU
environment ministers and their counterparts from 10 Asian countries began
meeting here Sunday on a range of issues affecting the future of the planet,
Italian minister Altero Matteoli said. "This is an important meeting and
its importance is shown by the fact that there are 25 countries represented,
15 from the European Union and 10 Asian countries," the minister said.
Matteoli said ministers at the meeting would discuss "important issues about
the future of the planet like climatic changes, water resources, the
implementation of the Kyoto protocol and desertification."

The ASEM
(Asia-Europe Meeting) was expected to finalise a joint declaration on Monday
after a working dinner late Sunday. The Italian minister said both sides had
reached broad agreement after technical discussions by officials on Saturday
but that "small issues" still remained. The meeting, a follow-up to last
year's World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, aims to
identify shared views and prospects for dialogue, cooperation and
partnerships. Specific issues under discussion include sustainable
consumption and production patterns, sustainable use and conservation of
natural resources -- including bio-diversity and forests, oceans and in
particular environmental aspects of maritime safety -- as well as energy and
public participation. The meeting is only the second of its kind between
ministers of the two regions. The first summit took place on January 17 last
year in Beijing.

(AGI) -
Rome, Italy, Oct. 6 - The Party Conference of the Conventions for climatic
changes, which will take place in Milan from December 1 until the 12, will
deal with the negotiation on "the measures and the projects for the long and
medium period objectives for the reduction of global emissions". This was
stated by the Minister of the Environment, Altero Matteoli, during the press
conference to present the results of the informal consultation for the Cop 9
preparation which had the 13 European ministers of the environment and the
representatives of 29 countries meet today. Matteoli insisted upon the
direct relationship between emission reduction and the increase in research
and international cooperation for the spreading of innovative technology.
Among the issues that Cop 9 will have to deal with there is also the Kyoto protocol, whose
implementation has been delayed while awaiting that Russia ratifies the
agreement that establishes a 5.2 pct reduction in gas emissions compared to
1990. After the USA's withdrawal from the protocol the Russian Federation
(whose gas emissions are equivalent to 17.4 pct of the total) has an
important role for the implementation of the agreement. Italy in the name of
the EU and as chairman is preparing the Cop 9 so as to facilitate a positive
decision from Russia. According to recent studies on climatic changes within
2030 the emissions must be reduced by at least 50 pct compared to 1990, a
much higher level that the Kyoto protocol one, and it is therefore necessary
that more countries participate in the safeguarding of the environment.
Other issues of the Cop 9 will concern the finding of solutions for
renewable energy sources, the fight against pollution and the Clean
Development Mechanism (CDM)programs in developing countries.

Concerning
the US position on the Kyoto Protocol Matteoli said that the USA believes it
is not ready to ratify it but they are however implementing policies which
join production needs with the safeguarding of the environment. The minister
together with the director of the ministry of the environment, Corrado Clini,
highlighted the importance of hydrogen as energy for the future, "another
very positive decision was to dedicate a whole day of Cop 9 to this fuel".
Concerning clean energy Matteoli admitted that Italy is still behind and that "this situation is unbearable".

The
minister spoke of the excessive problems and resistance to renewable energy
source plants, which however do not guarantee all the necessary energy for
Italy and the resistance of "local organisations and committees". The
executive Secretary of the Climate Convention, Yoke Waller Hunter, the UK
Minister of the Environment and Miklos Persanyi, President of Cop 9, were
present at the press conference. They both stated that there is still no
scientific proof that there is a connection between gas emissions and
climatic changes, but if there were a possibility to interfere with this
possible connection then it must be done. "Whatever we do today to stop
climatic change will have an impact and we must face this", said Waller
Hunter. Concerning Greenhouse gasses Matteoli said "a choice must be made
based on technical and scientific basis. We cannot continue with
uncertainty. We can intervene only with scientific certainty". (AGI)

Spain,
Europe's fifth-biggest electricity market, has overtaken the U.S. as the
most-favorable place to build renewable-power projects such as windfarms,
consultant Ernst & Young said in a report. The U.K. was third, ahead of
Germany and France, in the second Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Country
Attractiveness Index, which ranks 17 countries. Spain also was named the
best market for wind power, followed by the U.K., U.S., Germany and Ireland.
``Spain scores highly because of a deregulated market, the Madrid
government's ambitious targets for renewable energy and an attractive
planning environment,'' Jonathan Johns, head of Ernst & Young's Renewable
Energies Group, said in an e-mailed statement.

Governments
are pushing to produce more power from sources such as windmills and
hydroelectric plants after agreeing to reduce carbon emissions under the
Kyoto protocol. Germany, Spain, the U.K. and other European countries get
much of their power by burning coal or oil, which emit carbon blamed for
climate change. Spain plans to generate 16 percent of its electricity from
wind by 2011, up from 6 percent now. Iberdrola SA, the country's No. 2 power
producer, has focused on building wind parks and gas- fired plants, betting
they will be more profitable after generators start trading pollution
credits in 2005. The U.K. relinquished the top spot in Ernst & Young's
wind- power index as investors balk at providing the 6 billion pounds ($10
billion) needed to more than double its share of Britain's power production
to 10 percent by 2010.

Ernst &
Young cited ``regulatory uncertainty'' as part of the reason. The government
plans to review its renewables program in 2005. The U.K., with its
frequently rainy weather, also lags in solar projects. The U.K. is ``well
placed'' to meet its renewables targets, energy minister Stephen Timms said
yesterday at a conference in Glasgow. The government may give more details
on its plans for wind energy before 2005, he said. Germany is Europe's
biggest power market, followed by France, the U.K., Italy and Spain.

TOKYO,
Japan, Oct. 28, 2003 - Citing a deadly European heatwave and recent massive
power failures in the United States, Scandinavia and Italy, the executive
director of the U.N. Environment Program, Klaus Toepfer, said two of world's
most pressing issues -- energy security and climate change -- will not be
solved "by the mindset that created them." "Instead of climate change we
need to create the climate for change", Mr. Toepfer told more than 600
bankers, financiers and members of the financial sector in Tokyo for the
UNEP Finance Initiative Global Roundtable. In line with this year's theme
"Sustaining Value," Mr. Toepfer said this change must be towards sustainable
forms of energy to power the global economy.

Noting that large centralized fossil-fueled power stations supported by
large centralized distribution systems will continue to be vulnerable, Mr.
Toepfer launched the UNEP Sustainable Energy Finance Initiative aimed at
engaging the finance sector to invest in renewable energy and energy
efficiency. Although sustainable energy technologies such as solar cells and
wind generators have advanced rapidly, Mr. Toepfer said the transaction
costs and market uncertainty of many renewable energy projects has lead most
financiers to adopt a "wait-and-see" attitude, which is compounded by an
overall lack of information, experience and the tools needed to quantify,
mitigate and hedge project and financial product risks.

With
support from the United Nations Foundation, SEFI will help mainstream
financiers overcome these barriers and consider renewable energy and energy
efficiency as not just niche investments, but key components of secure
energy systems based on truly sustainable forms of energy.

SEFI builds on previous efforts by UNEP's Energy Unit, which has been
working with the finance sector since the late 1990s on new approaches to
financing sustainable energy in developing countries. Through various
programs, UNEP has implemented a variety of "financial catalysts" --
including seed financing and enterprise development, financing subsidies,
guarantee facilities, and financier advisory support services. In his launch
of the new initiative, Mr. Toepfer cautioned that if the billions of dollars
to be invested in new energy infrastructure in the next two decades follows
the fossil fuel "business as usual" mindset, the resulting serious and
irreparable environmental and social harm could dramatically affect the
health of human societies and economies and the ecosystems on which they
depend.

Further,
the economic losses for climate change, documented in a landmark 2002 UNEP
Financial Initiatives study, were described by a group of major global
financial corporations as "a major risk to the global economy" and noted
that "worldwide economic losses due to natural disasters appear to be
doubling every 10 years and, on current trends, annual losses will reach
almost $150 billion in the next decade."

"For developing countries, in particular, the reliance on fossil fuels and
centralized infrastructure will not serve the vast majority of people in
rural areas where the economic benefits of a modern energy system are
elusive, although the environmental costs from using low quality fuels such
as dung, coal and kerosene are not", says Mr. Toepfer. Nearly three billion
people -- half of the world's population -- rely on these fuels for cooking
and heating in simple devices producing large amounts of indoor and local
air pollution, which is linked to between 4% and 5% of the global disease
burden. UNF president Tim Wirth said: "In many developing countries, the
energy needed to drive development while protecting human and environmental
health means providing technology and services that are accessible,
affordable and clean. Renewable energy and energy efficiency are poised to
meet this challenge."

European governments on
Monday adopted new laws on energy taxation, but with many consumer-friendly
exemptions. A proposal to broaden the scope of existing energy taxation laws
to include all energy products, not just mineral oils as is now the case,
was unanimously adopted by ministers at Monday’s environment council in
Luxembourg. The directive is intended to boost competitiveness and reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. But numerous exemptions included in the final
proposal mean consumer petrol and diesel prices will not be affected in any
member state until 2010 at the earliest. And the laws will not affect public
transport or international air and sea transport. The new directive will see
all other uses of coal, gas and electricity subjected to minimum tax rates
across Europe. Member states will be able to offer companies tax breaks if
they work to reduce their energy emissions. The new law will come into
effect on January 1st 2004. The European commission is now pushing for
transitional arrangements in the accession countries, due to join the EU in
May 2004. “The directive will improve the functioning of the internal market
and help to meet the environmental objectives of the Kyoto Protocol”, said
internal market commissioner Fritz Bolkestein. And in a further bid to meet
Kyoto targets, renewable energy sources will not be affected

The
Honourable Minister for Energy, Dr Paa Kwesi Ndoum has been invited to the
United Kingdom as guest of the UK government. He will be in the UK between
23 - 24 October 2003. The purpose of the visit is to participate in the
launch of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP). As
part of its international efforts to combat climate change, and in
particular as part of the plan on energy security for Africa from the World
Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), the UK Foreign and Commonwealth
Office has been funding the REEP. The REEEP brings together governments,
business and other stakeholders with the aim of fostering international
collaboration to accelerate the market growth of modern renewable and energy
efficiency technologies. Its objective is to help in the removal of the
policy technical, market and regulatory barriers to their development and to
lower their costs so that they become affordable energy options. Ghana has
played a leading role in West Africa for this initiative, and in June this year hosted a regional workshop
attended by other West African countries keen to take action on renewables
and energy efficiency initiatives.

The UK and other
countries have agreed to work together to promote the use of sustainable
energy, under a new partnership launched today. The Renewable Energy and
Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) is a result of discussions from the
World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg last year. It aims
to bring together technology, expertise, political will and funding to
encourage countries looking to develop their sustainable energy markets.
Energy and environment ministers from countries including India, France, the
US and the Philippines joined forces to launch the partnership at the
Foreign Office.

Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw said: "In many situations sustainable energy is economically viable
now, and the challenges of climate change and possibly increasing insecurity
in the supply of fossil fuels can only make it more viable in the future."
Today's conference concluded that the partnership would work in three main
areas: (1) Identifying and removing policy and regulatory barriers to market
development in sustainable energy at a regional level; (2) Helping to match
finance with renewable and energy efficiency projects by facilitating better
links between policy-makers, financiers, business and other stakeholders;
and (3) Providing strategic direction as well as having an important
communications role, promoting and explaining the value and benefits of
renewable energy and energy efficiency to international organisations,
Governments, regulators, business as well as consumers.

Environment Secretary
Margaret Beckett said that a global low carbon economy was "within grasp",
but countries must work together to achieve it. "Overall the REEEP provides
opportunity for shaping the future direction of the energy system - in a way
that meets partners social, economic and environmental objectives," she
said. The UK has a key aim of a 60% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050
contained in the Energy White Paper published earlier this year.

Attempts by
BP and Shell to present themselves as "enlightened" oil companies mindful of
climate change and human rights are running into trouble with protests
planned at a talk being given by BP boss Lord Browne tonight. Rising Tide -
a loose-knit group of green activists - is organising a rowdy reception for
the oil executive when he arrives to give a speech on sustainable
development at the Royal Institute of British Architects in London. Friends
of the Earth - a mainstream environmental organisation - confirmed that it
too is re-evaluating relations with BP and Shell due to their apparent
failure to turn rhetoric into action.

"ExxonMobil
is still the bad guy but we are getting increasingly frustrated with BP and
Shell which talk about climate change but put their money into [oil and gas]
developments in places such as Russia and the Middle East rather than
renewable schemes. We are not going to be cosy with them because they are
doing bad things," said Roger Higman, climate change campaigner at FoE.

BP has been
at the forefront of efforts in recent years to create a softer image,
rebranding itself "beyond petroleum" and introducing a sunburst logo in
place of the traditional shield. Lord Browne has promoted transparency in
payments to developing nations and talked of the need for large corporations
to take a moral stance. Shell chairman Sir Phil Watts has also been keen
for the Anglo-Dutch group to take a lead role in moves on corporate social
responsibility. While this has generally been welcomed and set against the
more hardline and traditional stance of Texas-based Exxon, the honeymoon
period appears to be over.

Rising Tide
has been handing out anti-BP leaflets at institutions sponsored by the
company such as the British Museum, National Portrait Gallery and Tate
Britain. The group, which came out of Reclaim the Streets protests, argues
that BP is undermining fine words on sustainable development by involvement
in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which could be a "human rights
disaster". Rising Tide claims BP invests less than 1% of its annual budget
on solar and other renewable energy sources, a great deal less than they
spend on advertising and public relations. "Don't be fooled by oil company
public relations that the only people opposing their destructive agenda are
privileged western environmentalists. In fact resistance to big oil's
constant need to find new oil-rich frontiers is most determined amongst some
of the world's poorest people," it said.

It wants
its supporters to turn up today at RIBA in protest at Lord Browne's talk
which it believes will be "top-dollar greenwash". Britain's biggest company
rejected the criticism saying it had never presented itself as anything
other than an oil and gas supplier but one which wanted to play its part in
reducing harmful emissions. "Energy demand is growing worldwide and it is
our job to meet those needs at a reasonable price. We receive $300m a year
from our solar business but there is no real commercial alternative [to
hydrocarbons] so far," said a BP spokesman. The company has reduced its own
CO2 emissions - 10% below where they were in 1990 - partly by concentrating
on cleaner fuels such as gas rather than oil. It said it had spent two years
doing environmental and social impact studies on the Baku pipeline.

It is
possibly the most advanced, and certainly the most efficient, power station
in the world - and the statistics sound almost too good to be true. Built in
two distinct phases over the past 13 years, Denmark’s Avedore power station
utilises a staggering 94 per cent of the energy of its fuel, compared with
between 40 and 50 per cent for the average electricity producing power
station in the UK. It burns coal, gas, oil, straw and wood pellets, and is
equipped with a range of cutting-edge technology to reduce harmful emissions
into the environment and meet Kyoto protocol targets to limit climate
change. In addition, the heat produced in the process of generating power is
used to heat 190,000 homes in Copenhagen through a network of pipes which
run through the city.

Surprisingly, this most modern of power generating plants at Koge harbour in
south Copenhagen, owes its existence to the oil crisis that gripped western
nations in the 1970s. Electricity blackouts that have hit the UK, Europe and
North America in recent months have made security of supply a key issue. But
they have also served as a stark reminder of the energy crisis of three
decades ago, when oil price hikes, brought about by Middle Eastern oil
producers in the OPEC cartel, sent western industrial economies into a
tailspin.

Rising
prices stimulated piecemeal conservation efforts in the west - and, more
importantly, a determined and unprecedented exploration for new oil
resources. When these were inevitably discovered, the increase in supplies
and declining demand saw oil prices fall from $35 a barrel in 1981 to $9 a
barrel in 1986.

Things then
carried on as they had done prior to the crisis, and the queues at petrol
stations, shared baths, power cuts and cold, lamplit suppers became just a
distant, foggy memory. The chances of such crises occurring again were too
slim to be taken seriously. In Denmark, however, the episode
had left a more lasting impression and heralded the defining moment of the
country’s energy policy which is still benefiting its people today. In the
aftermath of the energy crisis, members of the Folketinget (the parliament)
decided every new plant built in the future must be a combined heat and
power (CHP) station, and be linked in to the district heating (DH) networks
that now serve the majority of Danish cities.

In
addition, legal measures were implemented that allow local authorities to
force building owners to connect, and remain connected, to DH. Fossil fuels
were subjected to high taxation for heating and investment subsidies were
offered to the utility companies to update and complete DH networks.

Hans
Kristoffersen, an energy policy and economics adviser with the Confederation
of Danish Industries, said: "The oil crisis in the 1970s was what really led
to the policy and realisation that we needed to use energy more efficiently
and that led to an increased focus on DH.” "We now have several hundred CHP
plants, many of which really took off in the 1990s, and the concept of
Avedore follows that philosophy in creating electricity as well as serving
the DH network of Copenhagen, along with all the other plants."

Avedore is
essentially two power station units combined: Avedore 1, built in 1990 at a
cost of £190 million, and Avedore 2, operational at the end of 2001at a cost
of £380 million. The Avedore 1 unit can also cope with oil combustion to
increase its flexibility, but primarily burns approximately 85 tonnes of
coal every hour. It produces 250 megawatts (Mw) of electricity, serving some
400,000 households and 330 Mw of district heat for 80,000 houses. Despite
burning one of the dirtiest fossil fuels, it thoroughly removes ash, sulphur,
nitrogen and carbon dioxides from the flue gas, a process which produces 3.5
tonnes of gypsum and mineral products which are then used in the cement and
building industries. Avedore 2 is capable of using oil and natural gas, but
primarily uses wood pellets and straw.

The wood
pellets are made from surplus wood from Junckers, the world’s largest
manufacturer of hardwood flooring. As such, they are totally CO2 neutral and
the 300,000 tonnes burnt annually make up half of the fuel used at Avedore
2. This is connected to a separate unit, the world’s largest straw-fired
boiler - that can supply the turbines with additional steam. It burns
150,000 tonnes of straw a year, accounting for 10 per cent of Avedore 2’s
fuel consumption, is also CO2 neutral, and all the ash is returned to the
fields where it was grown for its fertiliser value. Together, each of these
units supplies steam which operates large generators producing electricity
for the grid. When the driving force of the steam has been utilised, it is
then directed to large heat exchangers where the heat is transferred to the
DH water circulating in the grid. Finally, the steam is returned to the
boilers where it is supplied with new energy before the process is repeated.

Avedore 2
generates 570Mw of electricity, meeting the needs of some 800,000 households
and the same amount of heat for approximately 110,000 homes. If both the
heat and electricity capacities of Avedore 2 are added together, it has a
similar generating capacity to Cockenzie coal-fired plant, in East Lothian,
which was recently named as Britain’s worst polluter in terms of carbon
emissions. The main difference between the two is that most of the heat
produced at Cockenzie is lost without any energy being reclaimed, vastly
reducing its efficiency of fuel use. CO2 emissions for Cockenzie in 2002
were 4,138,000 tonnes, compared with 949,347 for Avedore 2. Add to this the
fact that the lion’s share of fuel used in Avedore 2 is carbon neutral (in
that it is produced from plant material which takes up carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere as it grows) and it quickly becomes apparent just how
inefficient Cockenzie is in comparison.

ScottishPower, which runs the plant, accepts it produces relatively high
emissions of CO2, but points out that this is only because they are operated
occasionally as back-up power stations rather than continually as base load
stations. However, electricity produced by the Avedore plant is expensive.
Although Energi E2, the company which owns the plant, will not specify the
exact unit production price of electricity and heat per kilowatt hour (KWh)
due to commercial sensitivity, it does give approximations. For coal it
sells at £0.012 per KWh, for gas £0.023 per KWh and for oil £0.028 per KWh,
giving an average of £0.021 per KWh including the biofuels price.

Compare
this with nuclear and it is perhaps understandable why Britain has not gone
down the road of multifuel plants and CHP - British Energy, the nuclear
power generator which provides a fifth of the country’s electricity, sells
at £0.015 per KWh. However, although nuclear power has consistently been
marketed as a cheap, and CO2 -neutral, electricity-generating source since
its introduction, the actual costs fail to take into account the hugely
expensive process of nuclear waste management and constant subsidies thrown
at the industry by government - all from the public purse. Between April and
the end of August, British Energy reported unaudited operating losses of £40
million. This does not include the £3.3 billion subsidy promised by the
government over the next decade for nuclear waste management, or the losses
made by shareholders and bondholders as part of the restructuring, or the
various other subsidies such as local authorities agreeing to delay rate
payments, and various creditors freezing payments. Peter Roche, a
campaigner with Greenpeace, said: "CHP, like wind power, is a classic case
of British procrastination. "While we sit and ponder for years, the Danes
get on and build systems which are now producing environmentally-friendly
electricity, whereas we can’t even decide what to do with our nuclear
waste."

Alexey
Kokorin is a climate change expert at the World Wildlife Fund in Moscow.
Peter Rutland is a visiting Fulbright professor at Sophia University in Tokyo.

TOKYO: For
the 1997 Kyoto treaty on global warming to come into effect, Russia's
participation is crucial. So opponents of the Kyoto accord are jubilant over
Russia's unexpected reluctance to ratify the treaty. Their rejoicing is
premature, however. It is still probable that Moscow will eventually join
the treaty. But in the meantime the fate of this key agreement is hostage to
the vagaries of Russian politics. It was long assumed that Russian approval
was a foregone conclusion, since Russia would be able to earn billions of
dollars by selling to Western countries its unused capacity to emit
greenhouse gases. But in recent months vocal opposition to Kyoto has risen
in Moscow, spearheaded by Andrei Illarionov, President Vladimir Putin's
contrarian economic adviser. Illarionov argues that with the United States
rejecting the treaty, there will be no buyers for Russia's "hot air," and
that the exemption of India and China from the treaty gives their
manufacturers an unfair edge. Moreover, ratification would be a snub to
Putin's "good friend" President George W. Bush.

The Kyoto
accord may well be flawed, but it has been accepted by 118 countries and is
our best chance for slowing global climate change. If Kyoto collapses,
international cooperation in greenhouse gas reduction will be postponed for
10 to 15 years, with potentially massive damage to vulnerable regions. The
treaty needs the signatures of countries producing 55 percent of the world's
greenhouse gases to come into effect. The participation of Russia, which was responsible for 17 percent of global emissions in the base
year of 1990, is needed to push the treaty over this barrier.

In late
September, opponents of the Kyoto accord organized a conference on global
climate change in Moscow. But their arguments failed to sway the majority of
participants. The critics rely on the argument that the main benefit for
Russia would be its ability to sell unused emission quotas. This resonates
with ordinary Russians, who fear that unscrupulous oligarchs may sell "our
clean air" to the West. In reality, the Kyoto process has already moved
beyond naïve ideas of emission trading, in favor of joint projects where
European countries invest in the introduction of cleaner technologies in
Russian plants.

Kyoto would
not damage Russia's international competitiveness or crimp Putin's plan to
double gross domestic product in 10 years. Russia is currently operating 30
percent below the 1990 pollution level, and the efficiency gains from new
investments would keep it below its Kyoto limits for the foreseeable future.

Russian
businesses such as Gazprom and the electricity giant United Energy Systems
see these potential benefits and are strong supporters of Kyoto
ratification. Three-quarters of regional governors are in favor of Kyoto and
are competing to bring European investors to their regions. Companies like
Gazprom and Lukoil, which have partnerships with European energy firms, are
keen to maintain a "green" image.

If the
benefits to Russia are so obvious, why has such vocal opposition emerged at
the 11th hour? The first reason is the self-interest of government agencies.
The Ministry of Economic Trade and Development, tasked with preparing
legislation for Kyoto ratification, liked the idea of emission trading,
which their own ministry would manage. But they saw little benefit for their
own organization in investment projects, which would be handled by the
Ministry of Energy and the companies themselves. So this summer the economy
ministry came up with a proposal to link Kyoto ratification to Russia's
accession to the World Trade Organization. WTO countries would never agree
to such linkage.

The other
main source of opposition to Kyoto is companies such as Yukos and Interros,
heavy polluters who do not want their operations opened to the close
monitoring that Kyoto entails. Exxon Mobil, an opponent of Kyoto, is
reportedly interested in buying Yukos. It is symptomatic than in a Oct. 3
press conference, Illarionov was using slides with climate change data
provided by Exxon. The anti-Kyoto campaign has persuaded Putin that it would
be politically dangerous to move forward with the treaty now, with elections
pending for the Duma in December and for the presidency in March. But the
Kyoto accord is a win-win proposition for Russia. One can expect the
government and legislature to move ahead with ratification next summer, when
the elections are over and they can return to considering Russia's long-term
interests.

President
Vladimir Putin’s announcement at the world climate change conference held in
Moscow late last month that Russia was still undecided about acceding to the
Kyoto Protocol (KP), has undoubtedly come as a blow to those who were hoping
for its quick implementation. For with Russia accounting for 17.4% of
greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels, its accession to the treaty would
have allowed it to cross the crucial goal of 55% reduction in emission
levels required for it to enter into force.

While
Russia’s decision may or may not spell the end of the KP, it may, however,
delay its implementation. For developing countries like India, which belong
to the category of non-Annexe I countries, and hence are not required to cut
their GHG emission levels, it could mean that that their potential of
earning lucrative projects through clean development mechanism projects as
defined in the KP could be affected.

One of the
most important CDMs that are emerging is the system of carbon trading, which
allows the development of a market wherein carbon dioxide as well as carbon
equivalents, ie, other greenhouse gases like methane, can be traded between
participants. The participants could be countries or companies. Though the
political and institutional framework for carbon trading is yet to develop,
it is generally believed that a potentially large and lucrative global
market for carbon trading could develop by the end of the decade.

How does
the system work? Once the KP enters into force, Annexe I countries
(developed countries) are required to reduce their average GHG emissions by
5% by 2008-12. A country or company wishing to reduce or meet their emission
targets can do so by investing in clean projects, which would contribute
towards offsetting their GHG emissions, but would also earn the investor
some “credits” which would go towards a net carbon reduction. A typical CDM
project would be substituting fossil fuel-based power generation with
renewable energy or a project that would improve existing energy efficiency
levels. Or, as in India, by investing in forestation or community tree
planting projects, called “carbon sinks”.

Currently,
carbon trading projects take place within some countries including the US
and UK, though recently some trade has also taken place between countries,
as well. But the potential for inter-state trade has been estimated at
around $2 trillion over the next 10 years. However, for a full-fledged
carbon trading market to develop, it would be necessary for the KP to come
into force as, according to some experts, trading would only make sense if
companies operated under emissions caps set by their governments.

Without an
overarching regulatory mechanism, the system would at best operate
informally, providing no incentive for emissions reductions. That is why
Russia’s accession is deemed crucial. However, according to some
environmental experts, even if Moscow decides against coming aboard the KP,
there is a way out. As per a clause in Article 20 of the protocol, an
amendment to the treaty could be adopted by the parties to the Protocol,
preferably by consensus, but if not, as a last resort by three-fourths
majority vote of the parties, whereby the goal of 55% reduction in emission
levels could be reduced and hence allow the treaty to come into force, which
would, in turn, take the pressure off the advocates of the treaty to get the
requisite countries aboard.

Unseen by
most, our world is being transformed at an exponential rate. It is a process
driven by unfettered industrial exploitation, growing technological control,
soaring population growth and now climate change, the effects of which open
up an apocalyptic scenario for the human race. Man's ecological footprint
is now outpacing many of the natural phenomena that govern our world.
Indeed, we have almost become our own geophysical cycle. Our biological
carbon productivity is now exceeded only by the krill in the oceans. Our
civil engineering works shift more soil each year than all the world's
rivers bring to the seas. Our industrial emissions eclipse the total
emissions from all the world's volcanoes. We are bringing about species loss
on a scale of some of the massive natural extinctions of palaeohistory. We
are altering the nitrogen cycle. Even in the remotest parts of the world,
contaminants like lead and DDT appear in the food chain.

The ravages
are there for all to see. Some 420 million people live in countries that no
longer have enough crop land to grow their own food. Half a billion people
live in regions prone to chronic drought. By 2025 that number is likely to
have increased fivefold. Deserts are likely to become hotter. Marine
ecosystems are at risk, including salt-water marshes, mangroves, coastal
wetlands and coral reefs. In 1998, the hottest year on record, large areas
of forest burned down after prolonged drought. By 2050 it is projected that
the Amazon will have died back. Shifts away from equilibrium unlock other
changes that interact with the original shifts and grossly magnify their
effects until the whole process spirals out of control and makes our planet
uninhabitable.

All these
threats are being exacerbated by population pressures. It took around
150,000 years for the world population to reach 1 billion in 1804. It took
another 123 years to reach 2 billion in 1927. It then took only 14 years to
reach 3 billion, a further 14 years to reach 4 billion, 13 years to reach 5
billion, and just 12 years to reach 6 billion. The UN projects global
population to rise to 9.3 billion by 2050, by which time almost 90% of the
world's people would live in developing countries. The pressures that this
exerts on the environment is scarcely calculable.

What can be
done? Clearly, what is needed is a framework of international law that
permits the operation of free trade and a competitive world economy, but
only within parameters strictly drawn to safeguard our planet. No such
system of international environmental governance exists at present, and none
is being seriously pursued. The realpolitik in the world economy is a
powerfully deregulatory one. The first stirrings of resistance to this
rightwing corporate hegemony are being seen in the anti-globalisation
movement, but this has yet to be translated into a coherent alternative
ideology. The core of a new international environmental governance needs to
be the network of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) that have
been negotiated over the past few decades to protect the global environment.
There are 200 of them, covering international trade in waste, chemical
pollutants, endangered species, ozone depletion, genetically modified
organisms and oil spills. Their weaknesses are that they are not readily
enforceable, their coverage is fragmentary and there are many policy gaps
where no effective MEAs exist at all.

The most
important issue is enforceability. MEA dispute settlement procedures have
never been used because the multilateral nature of the issues they deal with
make the provision for bilateral dispute settlement procedures largely
irrelevant. What is really needed is a world environment court that would
enforce a global environmental charter. The right to bring cases before such
a court should not be confined to the governments of nation states, but
should include public interest bodies, notably NGOs. The court should also
have permanent specialist bodies to investigate damage to the global
environment, whether inflicted or threatened, with powers to subpoena
evidence and prosecute individuals and corporate bodies. This would only
work if properly funded. However, if the fines imposed on corporate
offenders were recycled, the court's investigative and legal work would
quickly become self-financing.

Alongside a
world environment court we also need a strengthened United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) to promote a more sustainable world economy.
There need to be three fundamental changes: adequate and reliable funding;
the establishment of a forum of world environment ministers, meeting
annually; and, most important, it must be put on a par with the World Trade
Organisation. While the WTO can require that countries act in accordance
with what it calls free trade, Unep cannot require that companies or
countries act in accordance with environmental constraints. So unfettered
free trade remains the dominant aim, and even where there is an MEA in place
that may conflict with some aspect of trade, the WTO presses to ensure that
the latter takes precedence.

UNEP should
be empowered to receive reports and intelligence, give advice or warning
and, where appropriate, take legal action against offenders, either in
national courts or in the world environment court. The level of penalties
must be on a scale to constitute a deterrent. Just as the WTO permits a
retaliatory penalty to be pitched at a level related to the harm done over a
breach of trading rules, so the world environment court should impose
penalties that require the full remedy of damage to the environment and a
fine large enough to deter a repeat offence.

The court
could secure justice for the victims of environmental disasters and climate
change (mainly developing countries), and apply pressure on the perpetrators
(mainly industrialised countries) to avoid such catastrophes. The Red Cross
has even suggested that "poor countries might seek legal compensation [from
countries causing global warming] to pay for reconstruction through an
international climate court".

At the
national level, corporate social responsibility should mean three things.
First, all companies above a certain threshold of turnover or employment
should be required to report annually on their environmental and social
impacts. At present, in the UK, this is voluntary. Second, fines should be
jacked up. Polluting rivers, illegally discharging chemicals or dumping
hazardous waste are often met by derisory fines - a few thousand pounds
levied on a company with a turnover of hundreds of millions. These footling
fines should be replaced by deterrent penalties related to turnover, and
convicted companies or individuals should be "named and shamed" on public
registers.

Third,
corporate governance in the UK (and other countries) should include the
principle of direct responsibility on the part of the directors for the
activities of their subsidiary companies abroad. There are many examples of
corporate wrongdoing overseas - the depredations of Shell in the Nigerian
delta, illegal logging in south-east Asia and South America, chemical spills
as at Djibouti from the loading of chromium copper arsenate in plastic
containers, and Thor Chemicals' severe factory pollution of the environment
in South Africa. There should be
statutory provision in the headquarters country to hold the parent company
to account. The approaching apocalypse is not inevitable. This broad
framework of global and national governance, though it will be strongly
resisted and will take years of patient and persistent negotiation to
implement, would arrest the spiral of environmental decline and begin the
recovery of our fragile global ecology. It is a new world order whose time
has come.

HANJIANG,
China — China's rapid economic growth is producing a surge in emissions of
greenhouse gases that threatens international efforts to curb global
warming, as Chinese power plants burn ever more coal while car sales soar.
Until the last few months, many energy experts and environmentalists said,
they had hoped that China's contribution to global warming would be limited.
Its state-owned enterprises have become more efficient in their energy use
as they compete in an increasingly capitalist economy, and until recently
official Chinese statistics had been showing a steep drop in coal production
and consumption.

But new
figures from Chinese government agencies confirm what energy industry
executives had suspected: that coal use has actually been climbing faster in
China than practically anywhere else in the world. To the extent that global
warming is caused by humanity, as many scientists believe, this is a serious
problem because burning coal at a power plant releases more greenhouse gases
than using oil or natural gas to generate the same amount of electricity.
China's rising energy consumption complicates diplomatic efforts to limit
emissions of global warming gases. The International Energy Agency in Paris
predicts that the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from 2000 to 2030 in
China alone will nearly equal the increase from the entire industrialized
world.

China is
the world's second largest emitter of such gases, after the United States.
But China's per-person energy use and greenhouse gas emissions remain far
below levels found in richer countries. The emissions are, for example,
roughly one-eighth of those per capita in the United States. As a
developing country, China is exempt from the Kyoto Protocol, the pending
international agreement to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. When
President Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol two years ago, he portrayed
China's exemption as a serious flaw. The protocol has been embraced by most
other big nations, however, and only requires ratification by Russia to take
effect. Another developing country exempt from the protocol, India, is also
showing strong growth in emissions as its economy prospers. General Motors
predicts that China will account for 18 percent of the world's growth in new
car sales from 2002 through 2012; the United States will be responsible for
11 percent, and India 9 percent.

Official
Chinese statistics had shown a decline in coal production and consumption in
the late 1990's, even as the economy was growing 8 percent a year. But many
Western and Chinese researchers have become suspicious of that drop over the
last several years. They point out that the decline assumed that local
governments had followed Beijing's instructions to close 47,000 small,
unsafe mines producing low-grade coal and many heavily polluting small power
plants. Yet researchers who visited mines and power plants found that they
often remained open, with the output not being reported to Beijing because
local administrators feared an outcry if they shut down important employers.
China's National Bureau of Statistics has not revised its coal figures for
the late 1990's, but its latest data show that coal consumption jumped 7.6
percent last year. A Chinese official said the bureau was likely to report a
similar increase for this year. Even those figures may be low: Chinese coal
industry officials have estimated that coal consumption may be rising more
than 10 percent a year.

China is
now the world's largest coal consumer, and its power plants are burning coal
faster than its aging railroads can deliver it from domestic mines, most of
which are in the north. So the country is importing coal from Australia.
This steamy city of 640,000, with its deep-water port, is the main receiving
point in southern China. As fishermen in wooden boats brought conical wicker
baskets full of silvery, sardine-size fish ashore at dawn on a recent
morning, the sun began illuminating an enormous, coal-fired power plant with
a big freighter from Australia tied up next to it.

The plant
is only nine years old. Zhanjiang drew its electricity over high-tension
lines from other cities to the north before then. But the power plant is
already inadequate for the area's needs, even though it is twice the size of
a standard coal-fired plant. With blackouts frequent here for lack of power,
construction has just begun on another, adjacent power plant, that one
oil-fired. Other figures from the Bureau of Statistics have also shown very
large increases in energy consumption lately. China's electrical power
generation, the main use of coal in China, jumped 16 percent in the first
eight months of this year, nearly four times as much as Western experts
expected. Power generation is poised to grow swiftly in the years to come,
with China's output of equipment for new power plants rising by two-thirds
in a single year.

China has
also become the world's fastest-growing importer of oil, with foreign
purchases surging nearly a third this year, although some of those imports
went into stockpiles in January and February as a precaution in case the war
in Iraq disrupted shipments from the Middle East. The Chinese are using more energy in their homes, too, as China has turned into the world's largest
market for television sets and one of the largest for many other electrical
appliances. A 53-year-old retired saleswoman here said that for more than
half her life, her only electrical appliance at home was a light bulb. She
and her husband bought a black-and-white television set in 1984, then a
refrigerator in 1988. Now she has an air-conditioner, which she acquired in
1998, along with two color televisions, an electric rice cooker, a radio,
the refrigerator and many lights. "Only the old people do not have
air-conditioning now," said the woman, Ms. Long, who, like others
interviewed in this militarily important city, insisted on giving only her
family name.

Environmental groups that once promoted China as a good example are now increasingly worried. "If they're seeing 6
and 7 percent growth, that is obviously a concern," said Dan Lashof, a
climate change expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has
done several studies of Chinese energy use. But environmentalists are also
loath to criticize China too strongly,
partly because Chinese emissions per person are still so much lower than
those in the developed world, and partly because China has been trying with
some success to improve the energy efficiency of its industries. Programs
like requiring electrical appliances and building designs to waste less
energy show considerable promise, said Barbara Finamore, the director of the
Clean China Program at the council. The central government in Beijing has had repeated
difficulties in forcing provincial governments to pursue recent efficiency
programs. China no longer has the central planning mandates to order
improvements, but has not yet developed market-based incentives, like higher
prices, to encourage people to curb their consumption of fossil fuels, Ms.
Finamore said.

China's
central bank is nervous that some sectors of the economy, especially luxury
housing construction, are growing too fast, and it is trying to restrain
them. If it succeeds, that could temper somewhat the increase in energy use.
China is not alone in consuming a lot more energy, although its enormous
population of roughly one and a quarter billion, and rapid economic growth
mean that its increases dwarf those of any other country in the developing
world. India, for example, is also showing rapid growth in energy use. In
populous countries from Indonesia to Brazil, power plants are burning more
and more coal and oil to meet ever growing demand for electricity from
industry and households. Even some climate experts in developing countries
are conceding that their emissions need to be addressed when international
talks begin in 2005 on what will follow the Kyoto agreement, which calls for
industrialized nations to reduce their emissions by 2012. Considerable
reluctance persists among developing countries, however, to accept the kind
of specific limits prescribed for wealthy countries by the Kyoto Protocol.
"There's going to be a fairly heated debate about what developing countries
should do in the next round," said Rajendra K. Pachauri, an Indian engineer
who is the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a
United Nations group that assesses the causes and consequences of rising
temperatures.

The Chinese
government is drafting a series of new economic policies, some of which will
concern energy, and is expected to release them soon. Senior Chinese
officials did not respond to requests for interviews over the last two
months. Two fairly senior Chinese officials said in earlier, separate
interviews, after President Hu Jintao succeeded Jiang Zemin in March, that
an active debate was under way over the extent to which conservation should
be balanced against economic growth.

Growth in
Chinese coal consumption should slow somewhat in the next four years.
Completion of the Three Gorges dam and five nuclear power plants will
provide considerable additional electricity for China's national grid by
2007, although posing different environmental risks from coal. But Larry
Metzroth, a coal and electricity specialist at the International Energy
Agency, warned that with no further large hydroelectric or nuclear power
projects planned in China, coal consumption "is going to pick up again after
2007."

Beijing's
official New China News Agency recently predicted that China's capacity to
generate electricity from coal would be almost three times as high in 2020
as it was in 2000. If China can continue to sustain 8 percent annual
economic growth, then the next big growth area in greenhouse gas emissions
is likely to be cars. China is already the world's fastest-growing car
market, with sales up 73 percent this year.

China has
just one-twentieth as many cars now as the United States, because car sales
were tiny until the last three years. But a swift expansion of auto
factories in China, together with rising household incomes and the growing
availability of auto loans, has led to the surge.

Here in
Zhanjiang, downtown streets are already clogged with cars. One of the best
businesses in town seems to be a corner store in the city's old quarter, an
area of tightly packed three-story homes with traditional tile roofs. The
corner store sells every possible kind of fuse, tubing and wiring for
electricians, and it was so busy that the store's owners barely had time to
speak. "People are rewiring a lot," said Mr. Pong, the patriarch of the
family that runs the store. "Or they just demolish the old and build new."

It was a
little over a year ago that around 70,000 persons, including heads of states
from several countries, converged on Johannesburg for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. One of the spectacles
that several participants witnessed, and which was reported widely in the
media worldwide, was the burning of a large pile of sugar imported from
Europe. The farmers of Africa were
protesting against the huge subsidies provided to agriculture in Europe,
which have apparently made the whole of Africa dependent on food imports
from the North, wiping out the livelihoods of farmers on that continent.

Anyone who
sensed the strong sentiment behind this incident in Johannesburg would
readily understand the firm stand that the developing countries took at
Cancun in the WTO meeting recently. While several issues remained unresolved
during this meeting, the most contentious subject on which an agreement
could not be reached related to the phasing out of subsidies on agriculture
by the developed countries. Some inferences can be drawn now a month after
the Cancun meeting ended inconclusively.

First,
while Cancun represents a major setback, it is not necessarily the end of
the road in the ongoing Doha round of negotiations under the WTO. Our
commerce minister Arun Jaitley has voiced this view. This means that there
is considerable work to be done, and the government of India would do well
to seek the best expertise available in the country.

The second
observation that could be put forward is that perhaps for the first time in
a critical area of international negotiations, the major developed countries
stuck together without breaking rank, despite concerted efforts to divide
them. Consequently, the developed countries have learned a lesson, which may
impact on the course of future negotiations under the WTO, and perhaps in
other areas as well where multilateral agreements are under negotiation.

The most
unfavourable outcome of Cancun could be a lasting impasse in negotiations
under the WTO, which would certainly restrict international trade and
continue with agricultural subsidies in the developed countries to the
detriment of the developing world. Even more serious would be the
implications for negotiations in other areas where multilateral action is
critically overdue. Most prominent among these is the urgency of an
agreement to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases (GHGs) under the Framework Convention on Climate Change.

As it
happens, the worst impacts of climate change are likely to be felt in the
developing countries, and by the poorest communities in all countries. A
delay in reduction of emissions to stabilise the concentration of GHGs in
the earth’s atmosphere essentially implies an intensification and
prolongation of the impacts of climate change, which would affect health,
agriculture and availability of water in several parts of the world; sea
level rise is already threatening societies in the small island states and
coastal areas worldwide.

A weakening
of the multilateral system under the United Nations, for instance, would in
the end leave no winners. As common inhabitants of spaceship earth we need
global agreements in areas where the actions of any society threaten on the
welfare of any other.

A stronger
affirmation of support to multilateral bodies and their effectiveness would
create conditions whereby humanity may rise above narrow interests and
illusory short-term gains. The alternative would be social disorder,
political tensions and threats to global security. In the year 2005,
negotiations are scheduled to begin for an agreement on the second
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, beginning after 2012. And yet, it
is not clear whether the Kyoto Protocol will be ratified. The outcome is
entirely in the hands of Russia , which has still not revealed any decision
on ratification or otherwise.

Irrespective of whether the Kyoto Protocol comes into existence or not, in
the next round of negotiations growing pressures would be applied on the
developing countries, particularly China, India and Brazil, to take on
certain commitments for limiting the emissions of GHGs. Would the same unity
among developing countries that was exhibited in Cancun remain at work in
climate change negotiations also? And, if there is a complete stand-off
between North and South, can we at all escape the ill-effects of climate
change in every corner of the globe? By contrast, the swift action that was
taken globally for implementation of the Montreal Protocol stands out as a
remarkably prompt initiative in multilateral decision-making.

However,
the question could be asked legitimately whether the Montreal Protocol
received swift global support only because it threatened the countries of
the developed world far more seriously than societies living in the tropical
and sub-tropical regions. Countries like India also need substantial analysis on issue like linking trade and
environment to forestall other barriers being erected by the North.

There is at
least a large degree of understanding today that poverty on a wide scale
anywhere in the world is a threat to the world as a whole. A fair and
equitable trading regime is the most effective means to reduce poverty and
an essential step in creating favourable conditions for multilateral
initiatives, which must prevail to overcome the critical challenges facing
the world today.

“THE Stone
Age did not end for lack of stone, and the Oil Age will end long before the
world runs out of oil.” This intriguing prediction is often heard in energy
circles these days. If greens were the only people to be expressing such
thoughts, the notion might be dismissed as Utopian. However, the quotation
is from Sheikh Zaki Yamani, a Saudi Arabian who served as his country's oil
minister three decades ago. His words are rich in irony. Sheikh Yamani first
came to the world's attention during the Arab oil embargo of the United
States, which began three decades ago this week and whose effects altered
the course of modern economic and political history. Coming from such a
source, the prediction, one assumes, can hardly be a case of wishful
thinking.

Yet a
generation after the embargo began, the facts seem plain: the world remains
addicted to Middle Eastern oil. So why is Sheikh Yamani predicting the end
of the Oil Age? Because he believes that something fundamental has shifted
since that first oil shock—and, sadly for countries like Saudi Arabia, he is
quite right. Finally, advances in technology are beginning to offer a way
for economies, especially those of the developed world, to diversify their
supplies of energy and reduce their demand for petroleum, thus loosening the
grip of oil and the countries that produce it. Hydrogen fuel cells and other
ways of storing and distributing energy are no longer a distant dream but a
foreseeable reality. Switching to these new methods will not be easy, or all
that cheap, especially in transport, but with the right policies it can be
made both possible and economically advantageous. Unfortunately, many of the
rich world's governments—and above all the government of America, the world's biggest oil
consumer—are reluctant to adopt the measures that would speed the day when
the Saudis' worst fears come true.

THE $7
TRILLION HEIST

If treating
the West's addiction to oil will be costly, is it really worth doing? To be
sure. Petro-addiction imposes mighty costs of its own. First, there is the
political risk of relying on the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC). Oil still has a near-monopoly hold on transport. If the
supply is cut off even for a few days, modern economies come to a halt, as
Britain discovered when tax protestors blockaded some domestic oil depots
two years ago. And despite what sound like large investments in new oil
fields in Russia and elsewhere, Saudi Arabia's share of the world oil market
will actually grow over the next two decades simply because it has such huge
reserves of cheap oil. Geology has granted two-thirds of the world's proven
oil reserves to Saudi Arabia and four of its neighbours. Because of this
continuing concentration of supply, the risk of a disruption to oil flows
will continue to be a threat, and may even rise.

That points
to a second sort of cost. According to one American government estimate,
OPEC has managed to transfer a staggering $7 trillion in wealth from
American consumers to producers over the past three decades by keeping the
oil price above its true market-clearing level. That estimate does not
include all manner of subsidies doled out to the fossil-fuel industry,
ranging from cheap access to oil on government land to the ongoing American
military presence in the Middle East.

The final
disguised cost of oil is the damage it does to the environment and human
health. Unlike power plants, which are few in number and so easier to
regulate, cars are ubiquitous and much more difficult to control. The
transport sector is a principal source of global emissions of greenhouse
gases. The only long-term solution to this connected set of problems is to
reduce the world's reliance on oil. Achieving this once seemed
pie-in-the-sky. No longer. Hydrogen fuel cells are at last becoming a viable
alternative. These are big batteries that run cleanly for as long as
hydrogen is supplied, and which might power anything in or around your
home—notably, your car. Hydrogen is a fuel that, like electricity, can be
made from a variety of sources: fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas,
renewables, even nuclear power. Every big car maker now has a fuel-cell
programme, and every big oil firm is busy investigating how best to feed
these new cars their hydrogen. Another alternative likely to become
available in a few years is “bioethanol”. Many cars (quite a few of them in
America) already run on a mixture of petrol and ethanol. The problem here is
cost. At the moment, the ethanol has to be heavily subsidised. But that
might alter when biotechnology delivers new enzymes that can make ethanol
efficiently from just about any sort of plant material. Then, the only limit
will be how much plant material is available.

ALL IN
GOOD TIME

Such
changes will not occur overnight. It will take a decade or two before either
fuel cells or bioethanol make a significant dent in the oil economy. Still,
they represent the first serious challenges to petrol in a century. If
hydrogen were made from renewable energy (or if the carbon dioxide generated
by making it from fossil fuels were sequestered underground), then the cars
and power plants of the future would release no local pollution or
greenhouse gases. Because bioethanol is made from plants, it merely
“borrows” its carbon from the atmosphere, so cannot add to global warming.
What is more, because hydrogen can be made in a geographically distributed
fashion, by any producer anywhere, no OPEC cartel or would-be successor to
it could ever manipulate the supplies or the price.

There need
never be another war over energy. It all sounds very fine. What then is the
best way to speed things up? Unfortunately, not through the approach
currently advocated by President George Bush and America's Congress, which
this week has been haggling over a new energy bill. America's leaders are still
concerning themselves almost exclusively with increasing the supply of oil,
rather than with curbing the demand for it while increasing the supply of
alternatives. Some encouragement for new technologies is proposed, but it
will have little effect: bigger subsidies for research are unlikely to spur
innovation in industries with hundreds of billions of dollars in fossil-fuel
assets. The best way to curb the demand for oil and promote innovation in
oil alternatives is to tell the world's energy markets that the
“externalities” of oil consumption—security considerations and environmental
issues alike—really will influence policy from now on. And the way to do
that is to impose a gradually rising gasoline tax.

By
introducing a small but steadily rising tax on petrol, America would do far
more to encourage innovation and improve energy security than all the
drilling in Alaska's wilderness. Crucially, this need not be, and should not
be, a matter of raising taxes in the aggregate. The proceeds from a gasoline
tax ought to be used to finance cuts in other taxes—this, surely, is the way
to present them to a sceptical electorate. Judging by the debate going on in
Washington, a policy of this kind is a distant prospect. That is a great
shame. Still, the pace of innovation already under way means that Sheikh
Yamani's erstwhile colleagues in the oil cartel might themselves be wise to
invest some of their money in the alternatives. One day, these new energy
technologies will toss the OPEC cartel in the dustbin of history. It cannot
happen soon enough.

The number
of people seeking refuge as a result of environmental disaster is set to
increase dramatically over the coming years. Ironically, given current
attitudes, industrialised countries will resist accommodating them, and yet
they will have become refugees as a direct result of the way the West lives.
Global warming - more than war or political upheaval - stands to displace
millions. And climate change is being driven by fossil fuel-intensive
lifestyles. Though they have no official status, environmental refugees are
already with us.

They are
people who have been forced to flee their homes because of factors such as
extreme weather, drought and desertification. There are already more of them
than their "political" counterparts - 25-million, according to the last
estimate, compared to about 22-million conventional refugees at their
highest point in the late 1990s.

By 2050,
mostly due to the likely effects of global warming, there could be more than
150-million.

In 2001
170-million people were affected by disasters, 97% of which were
climate-related. In the previous decade more than 100-million suffered
drought and famine in Africa, a figure likely to increase with global
warming. According to one study, at least five small island states are at
risk of ceasing to exist. Sea-level rise could devastate the Maldives.
Without real international legal protection, their people could become
resented minorities in Sri Lanka, itself threatened, or India, which has its
own problems. On the small South Pacific island of Tuvalu, people already have an
ad hoc agreement with New Zealand to allow phased relocation.

Up to
10-million could be displaced in the Philippines, millions more in
Cambodia, Thailand, Egypt, China - the list goes on. The effects of these
population movements are likely to be highly destabilising globally unless
they are carefully managed. But in spite of the scale of the problem, no one
in the international community, including the United Nations High Commission
for Refugees (UNHCR), has taken control of the problem. The UNHCR says that,
institutionally, it is too poor and that environmental refugees should be
dealt with at the national level. It's true that most parts of the UN system
are underfunded. Ironically this, like global warming, is mostly the fault
of wealthy industrialised countries for either not raising or meeting their
contributions.

But without
action, the countries least responsible for creating the problem stand to
carry the largest share of costs associated with environmental refugees.
Bangladesh, one of the world's poorest countries, expects to have about
20-million people displaced. Creating new legal obligations to accept
environmental refugees would help ensure that industrialised countries
accept the consequences of their choices. Refugees are defined as people
forced to flee across an international border because of a well-founded fear
of persecution, or fear for their lives and freedom due to, among other
things, membership of a particular group. In terms of well-founded fears,
drowning, homelessness or starvation would seem to fit the bill. In terms of
membership of a particular group, any community or indigenous group
similarly prone would also fit. Without proper environmental refugee status,
the displaced could be condemned to a national economic and geographical
lottery, and to the patchwork availability of resources and application of
immigration policies.

There is an
acceptance that current national policies would not be capable of handling
the scale of the problem. Environmental refugees need to be recognised and
the problem managed before it manages us.

Margot
Wallstrom, European commissioner for the environment, contributed this
comment to The Moscow Times.

I would
like to congratulate Russia on the successful World Climate Change
Conference last week. The conference made it possible for experts from more
than 100 countries to review current scientific knowledge about climate
change and its severe impact on ecosystems and society. The official summary
report adopted by the conference confirms that climate change is man-made
and represents a major threat to sustainable development.

We should,
of course, be cautious about explaining individual weather events by
reference to climate change. Nonetheless, many countries have recently had a
taste of the dramatic consequences that scientists predict climate change
will bring. Temperatures in some Indian states reached 45 to 49 degrees
Celsius, with hundreds of people dying as a result. Last May saw a record
562 tornados hitting the United States and resulting in 42 deaths -- the
highest number of tornados in any one month to date. Western Europe
experienced an unusual heatwave and drought during the summer months,
damaging harvests, killing many elderly people and forcing choices to be
made between irrigating crops and keeping power stations going. Germany had
the hottest summer since records were started in 1901.

Such
extreme weather would become more frequent if the climate were to change.
Add to this the impact of rising sea levels on low-lying islands and coastal
zones, the spread of tropical diseases and huge damage to infrastructure due
to melting of the permafrost and you start to understand that climate change
will have dramatic consequences for all countries. No country will be
spared, and poorer countries that can least adapt to climate change will
suffer the most. It would be foolhardy to ignore the writing on the wall.
Science tells us what has to be done to prevent or at least mitigate climate
change. Emissions of greenhouse gases have to be reduced by something in the
order of 70 percent worldwide. As a first step, the Kyoto Protocol adopted
under the umbrella of the United Nations requires industrialized countries
to limit their emissions between 1990 and 2008 to 2012.

The
European Union has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 8
percent during this period and is taking measures to achieve this goal. 119
countries, including EU countries, have already ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
To enter into force, it now has to be ratified by Russia as well, so that
states representing at least 55 percent of industrialized countries'
greenhouse gas emissions are party to the agreement. Since the United States
has withdrawn from the Kyoto Protocol, this requires ratification by Russia. Russia, therefore, holds the key
to putting into place the new international agreement to combat climate
change. The EU and many other countries were pleased when Russia announced,
at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg over a year
ago, that it would ratify the Kyoto Protocol in the near future. It's worth
remembering that climate change will not go away but remain with us as an
issue for many years.

It took
several years to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. During these negotiations,
Russia's demands were fully met. The result of this effort by the
international community is an ingenious treaty that combines protection of
the global climate with economic opportunities. The so-called Kyoto flexible
mechanisms allow parties to the protocol to trade in emission credits and to
earn emission credits from projects in other industrialized or developing
countries.

This will
enhance international cooperation, promote investments and support the
transfer of advanced technologies. The EU is keenly interested in using
these mechanisms. While the quantity of emission credits to be traded or
investments to be undertaken will be determined by the market, the EU and
its member states are taking action to make the Kyoto flexible mechanisms
attractive. We intend to open the EU's internal emissions trading scheme to
credits from projects in other countries, thereby providing an additional
incentive for investors. Several member states are preparing their own
programs, including funds, to use the project mechanisms.

Russia is
well-placed to benefit from these economic opportunities. European companies
are interested in investing, for example, in the Russian energy sector and
earning emission credits by doing so. This would help Russia in its efforts
to modernize its economy and protect the climate at the same time. We have
offered Russia a permanent dialogue on the use of Kyoto flexible mechanisms
and on climate change more generally, because we appreciate Russia's central
position when it comes to these issues. However, the benefits from these
mechanisms will only materialize -- for Russia and for the entire world --
if Russia ratifies the Kyoto Protocol. I am convinced that Russia will
ratify the protocol, given that it announced its decision at the
Johannesburg Summit. It will show itself as a nation that is aware of its
responsibilities toward present and future generations, and toward its own
people and the life of people in other parts of the world.